DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11 January, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 15 – 17 and 30 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 30 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.
Claims 1 - 30 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), and does not include additional elements that either: 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or 2) that provide an inventive concept – i.e. element that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea because, when considered as a whole, the plain focus of the claims is on an abstract idea.
Claim 30 is representative. Claim 30 recites:
An analysis method, comprising the steps of:
driving an analysis module to extract a user sleeping data from an accessing module;
driving the analysis module to extract a standard sleeping data from the accessing module corresponding to the user sleeping data;
driving the analysis module to compare the user sleeping data with the standard sleeping data to generate at least one sleeping analysis result;
driving the analysis module to convert the at least one sleeping analysis result into at least one sleeping index grade, a sleeping quality grade and a sleeping index graphics;
driving the analysis module to display the at least one sleeping index grade, the sleeping quality grade and the sleeping index graphics, and the sleeping index graphics is a radar chart;
wherein, the at least one sleeping index grade is arranged around the sleeping index graphics, or the at least one sleeping index grade overlaps the sleeping index graphics.
Claim 1 recites an analysis module (i.e. a processor) that executes the steps of the method recited in Claim 30. Claim 15 recites an analysis module (i.e. a processor) that executes the steps of the method recited in Claim 30, except specifying that the “at least one sleeping analysis result” comprises “at least three sleeping analysis results”.
STEP 1
The claims are directed to an analysis module and a method which are included in the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 30, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea including:
extract a user sleeping data;
extract a standard sleeping data corresponding to the user sleeping data;
compare the user sleeping data with the standard sleeping data to generate at least one sleeping analysis result;
convert the at least one sleeping analysis result into at least one sleeping index grade, a sleeping quality grade and a sleeping index graphics;
display the at least one sleeping index grade, the sleeping quality grade and the sleeping index graphics, and the sleeping index graphics is a radar chart.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 30, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “mental processes” grouping – concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. The claims recite collecting (i.e. extract) and analyzing (compare, generate and convert) sleeping data to obtain a result (i.e. a sleeping index grade, sleeping quality grade, graphics).
Collecting information, including when limited to particular content, is within the realm of abstract ideas, and analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and displaying certain results, without more, are mental processes within the abstract idea category. Merely presenting the results of abstract processes is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis (Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016).
The specification discloses that sleeping data is “usually obtained through measurements by sleep monitoring equipment” (@ 0039), and may be accessed from a database (@ 0066). The user sleeping data is compared to standard sleeping data, to generate a sleeping analysis result. Standard sleeping data is disclosed as “optimal sleeping data” for a population of patients with similar age, gender, etc. (@0041). For example, a user’s sleeping analysis result may include a number of data elements that may be compared to the standard.
“Each sleeping analysis result can be selected from slow wave power, breathing power, falling asleep power, sustainability and sleeping length power. Each sleeping analysis result can also be selected from deep sleeping duration, duration of sleep, duration in bed, number of times of respiratory event, time of first light sleep, number of times of getting out from the bed, blood oxygen concentration, sleeping position, sleeping position time, number of times of rolling over, heartbeat, blood pressure, ECG rhythm, etc.” (@ 0043).
In a simple example, a user’s measured “sleep duration” can be compared to a standard “sleep duration” for the similar population of users, to generate a sleeping analysis result. In a mor complex example, “sleeping analysis results” may include, “slow wave power” which is calculated as “the proportion of deep sleeping duration to sleeping duration” (@ 0044). Any of the specified results may be compared to the standard, and a score or grade determined, thereof. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “generating sleeping analysis results” includes simple comparisons between the user’s data and the standard. Similarly, converting the results into grades are simple calculations (i.e. summations, averages, etc.) that, except for generic computer implementation steps, can be performed in the human mind. Converting the analysis results to a grade is a process that can also be performed in the human mind. For example the grade may be calculated as a ratio such as 8.9/10, or a letter grade based on the numeric score (@ 0057, 0076); and the sleeping analysis result is converted into a numerical, letter, or textual grade (for one or multiple sleep sessions). As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the mental process grouping.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 30, also recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the mathematical formula or relationship grouping. The claims generate at least one sleeping analysis result; and convert the at least one sleeping analysis result into at least one sleeping index grade, a sleeping quality grade. These limitations are disclosed in the specification as comprising mathematical relationships. For example comparing a user’s duration of sleep to a standard duration of sleep involves mathematical relationships. Converting encompasses calculating ratios, etc. As such, the claims recite a mathematical formula or relationship.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 1, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping –
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims recite analyzing sleep data and generating a diagnosis (i.e. a sleeping grade) based on user sleep data. This process is typical according to the specification, and is process that merely organizes this human activity. (See MPEP 2016.04 (a)(2) II C finding that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” is a method of organizing human activity, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The claims recite limitations that include additional elements beyond those that encompass the abstract idea above including:
an analysis module;
an accessing module;
convert the at least one sleeping analysis result into a sleeping index graphics;
driving the analysis module to display the at least one sleeping index grade, the sleeping quality grade and the sleeping index graphics, and the sleeping index graphics is a radar chart;
wherein, the at least one sleeping index grade is arranged around the sleeping index graphics, or the at least one sleeping index grade overlaps the sleeping index graphics.
However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea in accordance with the MPEP. (see MPEP 2106.05)
The analysis module and accessing module are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer components. The specification discloses that the analysis module is a generic processor, and that the accessing module is a generic database. These elements merely add instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Similarly, converting the analysis result into a “sleeping index graphics” for display as a radar chart is ancillary to the abstract sleep analysis process. The technical details disclosed in the specification are limited to a “transforming” the results “through a variety of display functions”; including presenting results in well-known formats such as radar charts, donut charts, pie charts, bar charts, and more. (@ 0023, 0061). Converting the analysis results so that they can be displayed in a radar chart is a post-solution activity.
The claims further recite that “the sleeping index grade is arranged around, . . . or overlaps the sleeping index graphics.” Notably, the specification discloses that sleeping index grades “can be selected arbitrarily, and can be arbitrarily arranged around or overlapping with the sleeping index graphics” (@ 0074). The broadest reasonable interpretation covers arranging these elements according to a user’s preference. Displaying the results of the abstract process does not improve the computer itself, or any other technology, nor does the display of results provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Nothing in the claim recites specific limitations directed to an improvement to technology or to a technological process. Similarly, the specification is silent with respect to these kinds of improvements. For example, the specification discloses that the invention “is favorable for improving reading convenience, for quickly understanding . . . results, for providing more intuitive scoring, providing easy-to-understand sleeping quality analysis”, etc. (@ 0025 – 0035, 0068) These are not technological improvements, but are improvements to the user’s “understanding of the results”. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions, as is the case here, does not qualify as a particular machine, nor does the recitation of a generic computer impose meaningful limits in the claimed process. (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract sleep scoring process into a practical application of that process.
STEP 2B
The additional elements identified above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract sleep scoring process. Generating graphic elements and displaying the results of the abstract process is an ancillary part of the abstract process itself as in Electric Power Group. In particular, displaying results in a radar chart is a well-known and conventional interface element. Arranging data elements around or overlapping with other data elements is a conventional computer function for which Examiner takes Official Notice. Storing and retrieving information from memory is a routine and conventional computer function as in Versata and OIP Tech.
The additional structural elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer structure (i.e. an analysis module (i.e. a processor); an accessing module (i.e. a database)). Each of the above components are disclosed in the specification as being purely conventional and/or known in the industry. For example, the specification discloses that the analysis module may be implemented in an electronic device (@ 0006), which may be embodied in: “mobile phones, sleeping monitoring instruments, tablet computers, desktop computers, notebook, smart bracelets, smart watches and electronic wearable devices.” (@ 0067, 0086) Because the specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing particulars, Examiner concludes that the claim limitations may be broadly, but reasonably construed, as reciting well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and techniques. The specification describes the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars in order to satisfy U.S.C. 112. Considered as an ordered combination the limitations recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered individually. As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the abstract sleep scoring process, or an inventive concept.
The dependent claims add additional features including:
those that merely serve to further narrow the abstract idea above such as:
further limiting the sleeping analysis result to a particular calculation (Claim 2);
further limiting displays in various formats (Claim 4 – 12, 16 – 18, 20 – 24, 27);
those that recite additional abstract ideas such as:
displaying sleeping advice (Claim 12, 27);
those that recite well-understood, routine and conventional activity or computer functions such as:
an arrangement of a number of graphic elements on known charts; (Claims 3, 25, 26);
an analysis system comprising an electronic device (Claims 13, 14, 28, 29).
The limitations recited in the dependent claims, in combination with those recited in the independent claims add nothing that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, or that amounts to significantly more. As such, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide an inventive concept that transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention.
The apparatus claims are no different from the method claims in substance. “The equivalence of the method, system and media claims is readily apparent.” “The only difference between the claims is the form in which they were drafted.” (Bancorp). The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer, while the apparatus claims recite generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. Specifically, Claims 1 – 14 and 15 - 29 merely add the generic hardware noted above that nearly every computer will include. The apparatus claim’s requirement that the same method be performed with a programmed computer does not alter the method’s patentability under U.S.C. 101 (In re Grams). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 10 – 17, 20 and 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan et al.: (US PGPUB 2023/0148956 A1); in view of Mizuno et al.: (US PGUB 2022/0296159 A1); in view of Maeda et al.: (US PGPUB 2016/0184180 A1); in view of Wooten, III et al.: (US PGPUB 2012/0158516 A1).
CLAIMS 1, 13 - 15 and 28 - 30
Narayanan discloses a health monitoring system that includes the following limitations:
An analysis method; (Narayanan Abstract, 0007), comprising the steps of:
extract a user sleeping data from an accessing module; generate at least one sleeping analysis result based on the user sleeping data; (Narayanan 0026 - 0029, 0083, 0135, 0136, 0139, 0141, 0160 – 0162, 0186, 0219).
Narayanan discloses a system and method for monitoring a user’s sleep including a processor (i.e. an analysis module) for collecting and storing sleep data using sensors, retrieving (i.e. an extracting unit) the data from a database (i.e. an accessing module), and calculating time durations of various sleep states (i.e. at least one sleeping analysis result) from the data. Narayanan further discloses the following limitations:
extract a standard sleeping data from the accessing module corresponding to the user sleeping data; compare the standard sleeping data with the at least one sleeping analysis result; (Narayanan 0219, 0250, 0283, 0286).
Narayanan discloses obtaining baseline measurements and/or thresholds applicable to the patient (i.e. standard sleeping data), and comparing current measurement data to the baseline and/or threshold.
convert the at least one sleeping analysis result into at least one sleeping index grade, a sleeping quality grade and a sleeping index graphics; display the at least one sleeping index grade, the sleeping quality grade and the sleeping index graphics; (Narayanan 0029, 0160, 0165, 0186, 0213, 0249, 0280 – 0286, Figure 28).
Narayanan discloses calculating a sleep score (i.e. a sleeping grade) for one or more time durations using the time durations of various sleep states (i.e. at least one sleeping analysis result). Narayanan calculates a score for both a particular sleep session (i.e. sleeping index grade), and for sessions over time such as days, weeks, or months (i.e. a sleeping quality grade). Narayanan generates (i.e. converts) the results into graphic displays of the sleep scores and other data (i.e. a sleeping index graphics) into graphs charts and text or other display information about the user’s sleep for display in a GUI on a display device.
With respect to the following limitation:
the sleeping index graphics is a radar chart; (Mizuno 0002, 0083, 0084, Figure 4 and 5).
Narayanan discloses displaying graphs, charts and text, but does not expressly disclose a radar chart. Mizuno discloses a sleep evaluation system and method that includes calculating a sleep score having various sub-scores (i.e. at least one sleeping index grade), and displaying the sub-scores of the sleep score such as: sleep duration, sleep efficiency, sleep latency and mid-sleep awakening; in a radar chart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan so as to have included generating and displaying a sleep score using a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Mizuno, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data. Examiner notes here that radar charts are old and well-known visual representations of data. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein, the at least one sleeping index grade is arranged around the sleeping index graphics, or the at least one sleeping index grade overlaps the sleeping index graphics; (Maeda 0125, 0126, Figure 11).
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno discloses determining sub-scores of a composite sleep score and displaying the sub-scores (i.e. at least one sleeping index grade), in a radar chart graphic. Narayanan/Mizuno does not disclose arranging the sub-scores around the radar chart, or overlapping it. Maeda discloses a system and method for evaluating various determination results including displaying determination values for five items that have been graded on a 100 point scale. The five items are displayed in a pentagonal radar chart together with the score for each item arranged around the radar chart in a position corresponding to the item’s radial line. The radar chart techniques in Maeda are applied to grades for five determination results corresponding to the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); nonetheless, the technique of arranging grades around a radar chart are equally applicable to the five results corresponding to sleeping in the present application, or to any set of results displayed in a radar chart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan/Mizuno so as to have included grades or scores for each element arranged around a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Maeda, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda discloses arranging grades around the radar chart, but not overlapping the chart. (This feature appears to be optional – grades may be arranged around the graphic OR overlapping it – nonetheless, Examiner addresses the feature in the prior art.) Wooten (see Figure 71B and paragraph 0098) discloses scoring and displaying at least five property scores on a radar chart, including arranging at least one grade or score that overlaps the graphics. As in the present application, the point on the radar chart corresponding to each represented data element is “labeled” with it’s value. (“IG1” of Figure 4 in the present specification with a value of “80”) Similarly, Wooten labels the chart with the value of the item represented by the radial adjacent to the point inside the radar chart corresponding to the plotted value. (Values of 7.8 and 5.2 respectively are displayed for “Engagement Score”.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan/Mizuno so as to have included grades or scores for each element arranged overlapping a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Wooten, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
CLAIM 15
Claim 15 recite limitations that are similar to those in Claim 1, and are rejected on the same basis. However, Claim 15 includes the following additional limitations:
generate at least three sleeping analysis results; convert the at least three sleeping analysis results into at least three sleeping index grades; display the at least three sleeping index grades; the at least three sleeping analysis results comprise at least one of slow wave power, breathing power, falling asleep power, sustainability and sleeping length power; (Narayanan 0026 – 0028).
Narayanan discloses determining a plurality of sleeping analysis results including the time duration that the user was in a deep sleep state during sleep (i.e. slow wave power); time of sleep onset (i.e. falling asleep power); total time asleep during the time in bed (i.e. sustainability).
Claims 1 , 13 – 15 and 28 - 30 further recite physical elements including:
An analysis module comprising: a data extracting unit; an accessing module; a data analysis unit; a conversion unit; and a display unit.
A system comprising the analysis module of Claim 1/15; and the accessing module connected to the analysis module.
An electronic device comprising the analysis system of Claim 13/28.
The present specification discloses that the analysis module may be embodied in an electronic computer processor such as in a mobile phone, tablet or desktop computer, etc. (@ 0038, 0067). Narayanan (@ 0005, 0141, 0164) discloses a smart phone or other type of computing device for executing the recited functions.
Claim 30 further recites “driving an analysis module” to perform the various recited functions. The specification is silent with respect to what constitutes “driving”. Nonetheless, one of ordinary skill would understand that “driving” a processor to perform a function is performed by software. Examiner adopts this meaning. Narayanan (@ 0082, 0135) discloses computer-readable medium connected to the processor.
CLAIM 2
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. Additionally, Narayanan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one sleeping analysis result comprises at least one of slow wave power, breathing power, falling asleep power, sustainability and sleeping length power; (Narayanan 0026 – 0028).
Narayanan discloses determining a plurality of sleeping analysis results including the time duration that the user was in a deep sleep state during sleep (i.e. slow wave power); time of sleep onset (i.e. falling asleep power); and total time asleep during the time in bed (i.e. sustainability).
CLAIM 3
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. Additionally, Narayanan discloses the following limitations:
wherein a number of the at least one sleeping index grade is at least three; (Narayanan 0026 – 0028).
Narayanan discloses determining a plurality of sleeping analysis results including the time duration that the user was in a deep sleep state during sleep (i.e. slow wave power); time of sleep onset (i.e. falling asleep power); and total time asleep during the time in bed (i.e. sustainability). With respect to the following limitations:
the three sleeping index grades are arranged around the sleeping index graphics, or the at least three sleeping index grades overlap the sleeping index graphics; (Maeda 0125, 0126, Figure 11).
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno discloses determining sub-scores of a composite sleep score and displaying the sub-scores (i.e. at least one sleeping index grade), in a radar chart graphic. Narayanan/Mizuno does not disclose arranging the sub-scores around the radar chart, or overlapping it. Maeda discloses a system and method for evaluating various determination results including displaying determination values for five items that have been graded on a 100 point scale. The five items are displayed in a pentagonal radar chart together with the score for each item arranged around the radar chart in a position corresponding to the item’s radial line. The radar chart techniques in Maeda are applied to grades for five determination results corresponding to the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); nonetheless, the technique of arranging grades around a radar chart are equally applicable to the at least three results corresponding to sleeping in the present application, or to any set of results displayed in a radar chart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan/Mizuno so as to have included grades or scores for each of at least three elements arranged around a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Maeda, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda discloses arranging grades around the radar chart, but not overlapping the chart. (This feature appears to be optional – grades may be arranged around the graphic OR overlapping it – nonetheless, Examiner addresses the feature in the prior art.) Wooten (see Figure 71B and paragraph 0098) discloses scoring and displaying at least five property scores on a radar chart, including arranging at least one grade or score that overlaps the graphics. As in the present application, the point on the radar chart corresponding to each represented data element is “labeled” with its value. (“IG1” of Figure 4 in the present specification with a value of “80”) Similarly, Wooten labels the chart with the value of the item represented by the radial adjacent to the point inside the radar chart (i.e. overlap) corresponding to the plotted value. (Values of 7.8 and 5.2 respectively are displayed for “Engagement Score”.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan/Mizuno so as to have included grades or scores for each element arranged overlapping a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Wooten, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
CLAIM 16
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 15. Additionally, Mizuno discloses the following limitations:
wherein a number of the at least one sleeping index grade is at least five; (Mizuno 0065, 0083, 0084, Figure 4 and 5).
Narayanan discloses displaying graphs, charts and text, but does not expressly disclose arranging at least 5 sleeping grades as a radar chart. Mizuno discloses a sleep evaluation system and method that includes calculating a sleep score having various at least five sub-scores and displaying the sub-scores in a radar chart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan so as to have included generating and displaying a plurality of sleep scores overlapping a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Mizuno, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
With respect to the following limitations:
the at least five sleeping index grades are arranged around the sleeping index graphics, or the at least five sleeping index grades overlap the sleeping index graphics; (Maeda 0125, 0126, Figure 11).
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno discloses determining sub-scores of a composite sleep score and displaying the sub-scores (i.e. at least one sleeping index grade), in a radar chart graphic. Narayanan/Mizuno does not disclose arranging the sub-scores around the radar chart, or overlapping it. Maeda discloses a system and method for evaluating various determination results including displaying determination values for five items that have been graded on a 100 point scale. The five items are displayed in a pentagonal radar chart together with the score for each item arranged around the radar chart in a position corresponding to the item’s radial line. The radar chart techniques in Maeda are applied to grades for five determination results corresponding to the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); nonetheless, the technique of arranging grades around a radar chart are equally applicable to the at least three results corresponding to sleeping in the present application, or to any set of results displayed in a radar chart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan/Mizuno so as to have included grades or scores for each of at least three elements arranged around a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Maeda, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda discloses arranging grades around the radar chart, but not overlapping the chart. (This feature appears to be optional – grades may be arranged around the graphic OR overlapping it – nonetheless, Examiner addresses the feature in the prior art.) Wooten (see Figure 71B and paragraph 0098) discloses scoring and displaying at least five property scores on a radar chart, including arranging at least one grade or score that overlaps the graphics. As in the present application, the point on the radar chart corresponding to each represented data element is “labeled” with its value. (“IG1” of Figure 4 in the present specification with a value of “80”) Similarly, Wooten labels the chart with the value of the item represented by the radial adjacent to the point inside the radar chart (i.e. overlap) corresponding to the plotted value. (Values of 7.8 and 5.2 respectively are displayed for “Engagement Score”.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan/Mizuno so as to have included grades or scores for each element arranged overlapping a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Wooten, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
CLAIMS 4, 7, 17 and 20
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 1 and 15. Additionally, Narayanan discloses the following limitations:
wherein the sleeping score displaying unit displays an indicator numeric score; wherein the sleeping score displaying unit displays a full score of quality numeric; (Narayanan 0281, Figure 28).
Narayanan displays a graphic element with a score relative to a full score (i.e. 90/100).
5/16. The analysis module of claim 4, wherein the sleeping score displaying unit displays a full score of indicator numeric, and the full score of indicator numeric overlaps the sleeping index graphics.
CLAIM 5
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 4. Additionally, Mizuno discloses the following limitations:
wherein the sleeping score displaying unit displays a full score of indicator numeric, and the full score of indicator numeric overlaps the sleeping index graphics; (Mizuno 0083, 0084, Figure 4 and 5).
Narayanan discloses displaying graphs, charts and text, but does not expressly disclose a arranging sleeping grades around a graphic such as a radar chart. Mizuno discloses a sleep evaluation system and method that includes calculating a sleep score having various sub-scores and displaying the sub-scores of the sleep score overlapping a radar chart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan so as to have included generating and displaying a plurality of sleep scores overlapping a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Mizuno, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
CLAIM 10 - 12
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. Additionally, Narayanan discloses the following limitations:
further comprising a sleeping interval displaying unit; further comprising a sleeping position displaying unit; (Narayanan 0026, 0041, 0068, 0257, 0259);
further comprising a sleeping advice displaying unit; (Narayanan 0007, 0014, 0165, 0213).
Narayanan discloses generating and displaying suggestions for improving sleep, displaying a time duration of sleep (i.e. sleeping interval), and motion withing a period of time.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 18, 19, 21 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan et al.: (US PGPUB 2023/0148956 A1); in view of Mizuno et al.: (US PGUB 2022/0296159 A1); in view of Maeda et al.: (US PGPUB 2016/0184180 A1); in view of Wooten, III et al.: (US PGPUB 2012/0158516 A1) in view of Official Notice.
CLAIMS 6, 8, 9, 18, 21 and 22
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 1, 17 and 20. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the sleeping score displaying unit displays a quality letter grade;
wherein the sleeping score displaying unit displays an indicator percentage;
wherein the sleeping score displaying unit displays a quality percentage.
Narayanan/Mizuno does not disclose the recite measures; nonetheless, Examiner takes Official Notice that these recited measures are old and well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan/Mizuno so as to have included generating and displaying scores as letter grades of percentages, in accordance with the Official Notice taken, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
CLAMS 23 - 24
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten/Official Notice discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 22. Additionally, Narayanan discloses the following limitations:
further comprising a sleeping interval displaying unit; further comprising a sleeping position displaying unit; (Narayanan 0026, 0041, 0068, 0257, 0259);
further comprising a sleeping advice displaying unit; (Narayanan 0007, 0014, 0165, 0213).
Narayanan discloses generating and displaying suggestions for improving sleep, displaying a time duration of sleep (i.e. sleeping interval), and motion withing a period of time.
CLAM 19
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten/Official Notice discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 18. Additionally, Mizuno discloses the following limitations:
wherein the sleeping index grade is arranged around the sleeping index graphics; (Mizuno 0083, 0084, Figure 4 and 5).
Narayanan discloses displaying graphs, charts and text, but does not expressly disclose a arranging sleeping grades around a graphic such as a radar chart. Mizuno discloses a sleep evaluation system and method that includes calculating a sleep score having various sub-scores and displaying the sub-scores of the sleep score arranged around a radar chart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan so as to have included generating and displaying a sleep score around a radar chart, in accordance with the teaching of Mizuno, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
CLAIMS 25 and 26
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten/Official Notice discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 24. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the sleeping index graphics is a donut chart, the donut chart is transformed by at least two sleeping analysis results, wherein the sleeping index graphics is a curve chart, the curve chart is transformed by at least one sleeping analysis result.
Narayanan/Mizuno does not disclose the recited donut chart and curve chart; nonetheless, Examiner takes Official Notice that these chart types are old and well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the health monitoring system of Narayanan/Mizuno so as to have included generating and displaying scores in donut charts or curve charts, in accordance with the Official Notice taken, in order to provide an intuitive visual representation of the data.
With respect to the particular analysis results recited, (the sleeping analysis results comprise sleeping position and sleeping breathing; a number of times of rolling over and a number of times of getting out from a bed); these elements merely recite content to be displayed, where such content does not lend any patentable weight to the claims.
CLAM 27
The combination of Narayanan/Mizuno/Maeda/Wooten/Official Notice discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 26. Additionally, Narayanan discloses the following limitations:
further comprising a sleeping advice displaying unit; (Narayanan 0007, 0014, 0165, 0213).
Narayanan discloses generating and displaying suggestions for improving sleep.
Response to Arguments
The U.S.C. §112 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 January, 2026, with respect to the U.S.C. §112 Rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The U.S.C. §101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the U.S.C. §101 Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that arranging the at least one sleeping index score around the graphic or overlaps the graphic “serves as a technical solution to the problem of limited screen real estate on monitoring devices, enabling efficient presentation of multidimensional data” . . . “that improves the functionality of the GUI”. Examiner disagrees.
Initially, Examiner asserts that the applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. There is no limitation with respect to the electronic device of Claim 14, comprising the analysis system of Claim 13, comprising the analysis module of Claim 1. The specification discloses that the electronic device may be any type of computer including a tablet, desktop, and notebook computer (@ 0067) – these are not construed as having limited screen real estate. A smartphone is expressly contemplated by the specification, even if the claims are not so limited. Nonetheless, there is no disclosure that such devices present any type of technical problem relative to limited screen real estate that the invention purports to solve. The invention operates identically on a smart phone and a desktop. Rather than improving the functionality of the GUI, the invention improves the user’s understanding. This is not a technological problem.
The U.S.C. §103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the U.S.C. §103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose arranging sleeping index grades around, or overlapping, a radar chart graphic. Examiner agrees. Mizuno is relied on to teach generating and displaying radar chart plots of data elements related to sleep data analysis results; nonetheless, Mizuno does not teach also displaying a numerical value, percentage or letter grade for each plotted data element. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Maeda et al. and Wooten III et al.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2015/0269864 A1 to Tanabe, (Fig. 10); US PGPUB 2017/0358243 A1 to Kim et al. (Fig. 8); and US PGPUB 2022/0047226 A1 to Nojima et al. (Fig 3) disclose a health information reporting system that includes displaying radar charts of user data with grades arranged around the radar chart graphic.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to John A. Pauls whose telephone number is (571) 270-5557. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/index.jsp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery. Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300. Mailed replies should be addressed to “Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.” Hand delivered replies should be delivered to the “Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.”
/JOHN A PAULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Date: 11 February, 2026