DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim set filed on 05/19/2026.
Claims 1-2, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 and 12-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim 1-9 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-9, 12-16, and 20-21 are drawn to a method, Claim 17 is directed to an art of manufacturer, and Claims 18-19 are drawn to a system, and each of which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-9 and 12-21 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for monitoring sleep quality. Collecting a user sleep data to estimate sleep quality index are steps that could have been performed by a human mind but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Metal Process that can be performed using human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent Claim 1 recites the steps of:
“measuring, by embedded sensors in a wearable device worn by the user physiological historical data during a period of time, to obtain physiological historical data;
acquiring profile information previously provided from the user;
processing the physiological historical data obtained from the measuring by the embedded sensors and the profile information acquired to thereby transform the physiological historical data and the profile information into sleep and daily activity related features;
processing the sleep and daily activity related features via one or more Machine Learning models trained with a dataset comprising input features calculated from users' measured physiological historical data by a respective wearable device and and applied as input to the Machine Learning models;
determining a score for each of one or more sleep quality components using the processed sleep and daily activity related features, the determined scores being obtained by the one or more Machine Learning models that are respectively trained with the dataset comprising the input features calculated from users' measured physiological historical data by the respective wearable device that classify the sleep quality of the user that is component specific;
wherein the processing of the physiological historical data and the profile information to transform the physiological historical data and the profile information into sleep and daily activity related features comprises:
calculating a set of values for new sleep and daily activity related features from processing of the physiological historical data;
aggregating the physiological historical data and the calculated set of values to generate an index of a complete set of sleep and daily activity related features usable for classification considering the score for each of one or more sleeps quality components that are component specific based on sets of data values and aggregation functions set;
wherein the aggregation functions set represents a list of data manipulations including function definitions from domains of descriptive statistics and trend analysis domain, and the functions definitions include non-linear functions generated by neural networks;
wherein aggregating aligns the index used for classification and recommendations and further comprises:
preparing data by removing invalid values and, as needed, ordering in a sequence for an aggregation function;
traversing the values by going through all available and already prepared data to generate a single value following rules of the aggregation function for each pair of temporal data/aggregation function specified in an input;
applying specific rules of function using the aggregation function definition; and
outputting the single value of the aggregation aligned with the index and representative of the score for each of one or more sleep quality components that are component-specific based on the aggregation function”.
Independent Claims 17 and 18 recite similar steps as in Claim 1.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations by a human mind with aid of pen and paper reciting an abstract idea for Mental Process along with mathematical calculations and relationships that constitute Mathematical Concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitations encompass a user the ability to collect a user historical data to extract sleep and activity parameters to translate it with a sleep related features along with the individual answer(s) to a questionnaire to be calculated using statistical analysis and determine a score for sleep quality to classify sleep quality index of the user (e.g., bad, good, etc.) using mathematical formulas while applying rule(s) and aggregation for data preparation, which are steps that that could have been performed by a human to implement the abstract idea and are steps reciting mental process that could have been performed using a human mind with aid of pen and paper but other than the mere nominal recitation of "machine learning model, processor, embedded sensor(s), wearable device", to implement the abstract idea for performing the steps of observing, evaluating, judgment and opinion which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the Mental Process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “ computer-readable medium, processor, wearable device, machine learning model, processor, memory, embedded sensor(s)” that iteratively takes input data and analyzes said data to determine an output to performing generic computer functions for determining sleep score such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “i.e., applying input to a ready trained machine learning model to process and obtain recited in the claims at a high level of generality and is described in the specification in an arbitrary form without disclosing a specific algorithm using available data for allowing the model to learn patterns and relationships within the data and implement it to perform the claimed function”, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (i.e. “measuring, by means of embedded sensors in a wearable device worn by the user physiological historical data during a period of time...”), and mere data gathering that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d)-(g). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, do not present improvements to another technology or technical field, nor do they affect an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (i.e., “measuring, by means of embedded sensors in a wearable device worn by the user physiological historical data during a period of time …”), and mere data gathering that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d)-(g). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 12-16 and 19-21 include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 17, and 18, and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as
As for claims 13-14, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, reciting an abstract idea for Mental Process along with mathematical calculations and relationships that constitute Mathematical Concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, calculating sleep quality index, normalization by mean and standard deviation, is/are Mathematical Concepts. The claims are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 3, 6-7, and 9, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process” but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 2 and 4-5, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process”, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “wearable device, machine learning model, processor, memory” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality to perform the steps, e.g., “displaying..., storing...” that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 8, 12, 15-16 and 19-21, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, reciting an abstract idea for Mental Process along with mathematical calculations and relationships that constitute Mathematical Concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, scaling data summing scores, calculating index and using formulas, are Mathematical Concepts. The claims recite additional elements “wearable device machine learning model, neural networks, processor, memory, photoplethysmography, accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, pedometer, heart rate sensor, calorie expenditure sensor, sleep stage detection sensor, SpO2 sensor” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality to perform the steps of the claims that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner and addressed as the following:
In the remarks, Applicant argues the substance:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on page 9-11.
On page 9-10 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “All claims are eligible under §101 because (1) measuring by embedded sensors in a wearable device... and (2) the claims-as a whole-recite a practical application of providing a single score that gives a complete picture... According to Step 2A, Prong One, none of the pending claims recite a judicial exception ... Specifically, "measuring, by embedded sensors in a wearable device" and "determining a score ...” Examiner respectfully disagree. The claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite an abstract idea which have been analyzed under Step 2A, Prong One reciting a process for using a measured physiological data of an individual during period of time analyzed for sleep activity information, using the individual profile along with the individual answer(s) to a sleep quality questionnaire to be calculated using statistical analysis and determine a score for sleep quality to classify the quality while applying rule and aggregation for data preparation, which are steps of observing, evaluating, judgment, and opinion that are citing a process for which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in addition to mathematical calculation but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Mental Process.
Moreover, the claim(s) recite additional elements, (i.e., machine learning model, processor, embedded sensor(s), wearable device), recited at a high level of generality and as generic components recited as tools to implement the identified abstract idea that amounts to no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). For example, the Applicant specification [00050] describes the wearable device as “generic wearable device” capable of recording signals such as accelerometer, gyroscope, etc. where there is no description of the embedded sensors and how they are processing the collected data as such described at a high level of generality and as tool(s) to implement the abstract steps. These additional elements and the steps recited in independent claims, when viewed as a whole, recite a Mental process and the recitation of machine learning model, sensors, etc., have been analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two as an additional element cited as a tool (e.g., already trained model) for implementing claim steps that amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement “apply” the exception using a generic computer component and no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
On page 10 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole are directed to a practical application. Claim 1 calls for 'A computer implemented method enabling a computer to determine a score for a sleep quality component of a user",” Examiner respectfully disagree. As mentioned above, the claims(s) and the additional elements recited in independent claims, when viewed as a whole, recite a Mental process. Nowhere in the claim or the specification describes any improvement alleged by the Applicant improving function of wearable-based assessment rather describing a process for calculating score for evaluating sleep quality based on collected data values. As discussed in the non-final rejection mailed 02/19/2026, the claim(s) when stripping the generic handwear element for performing the claim steps, is/are reciting abstract steps to arrive to sleep score measuring sleep quality. The claims at issue when viewed as a whole, do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces but merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic handwear components. The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the Applicant argument(s) is/are not found to be persuasive. Hence, Examiner remains the 101 rejections of claims which have been updated to address Applicant's amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights