DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on August 5, 2025, for the application with serial number 18/559,122.
Claims 1 and 10 are amended.
Claim 8 is canceled.
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that additional limitations in the claims provide a practical application and/or significantly more than the abstract idea. See Remarks pp. 16-17. In response, the Examiner submits that the recited computer hardware – a user interface, processing apparatus, processing unit, and memory unit – are all generic computer hardware elements that do not provide a practical application or significantly more in the claims. The sensors are also generic. The sensors have no particular structure, and they are merely used to provide information. When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05b(b). The recited sensors are generally claimed, with no structure. The sensors do not implement the method – the sensors are merely used to acquire data. Moreover, the involvement of the sensors is extrasolution. The sensors are not required to implement the method, but the data used from the sensors is required for implementation. Therefore, the sensors do not amount to a particular machine. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the claims are merely directed to collecting, analyzing, and reporting data.
The Applicant further contends that the claims are subject matter eligible because the claims contain elements that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Remarks pp. 17-18. In response, the Examiner submits that an abstract idea without significantly more is just that – an abstract idea – regardless of conventionality. Lack of conventionality does not imply subject matter eligibility. Additional elements outside the scope of the abstract idea of determining a sleep schedule have been evaluated, but they have been found to amount to generic computer hardware elements that do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
35 USC §103 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the prior art rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1-7 and 10-15 and are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to determining a sleep schedule for a subject (as evidenced by the preamble of exemplary independent claim 1), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “obtaining . . , information;” “determining the required duration of sleep for [a] subject;” “analyzing the obtained information and determining a sleep schedule;” “obtaining one or more measurements relating to the subject;” “analyzing . . . the one or more measurements to determine information relating to a sleep quality;” “causing [a] user interface to provide a visual, audible, and/or vibratory stimulus;” and “extending . . . a subsequent sleep window in the sleep schedule.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of determining a sleep schedule for a subject that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of determining a sleep schedule for a subject. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of determining a sleep schedule for a subject. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes determining a best or optimal sleep schedule for an individual who works .
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a computer implemented method using a user interface, processing apparatus, processing unit, and memory unit; and sensors in independent claim 1; and an apparatus with a user interface, processing apparatus, processing unit, memory unit, and sensors in independent claim 10). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a computer implemented method using a user interface, processing apparatus, processing unit, and memory unit; and sensors in independent claim 1; and an apparatus with a user interface, processing apparatus, processing unit, memory unit, and sensors in independent claim 10) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624