DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 10-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claims 19-20 are directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a communication circuit configured to communicate with an external electronic device configured to measure movements and/or bio-signals of a user of the electronic device;
a processor; and
a memory,
wherein when executed by the processor, the memory is configured to store instructions for causing the electronic device to:
receive the user's heart rate and/or heart rate variability measured by the external electronic device,
map and store the heart rate and/or the heart rate variability to the user's sleep state determined based on the user's movement measured by the external electronic device,
select one of the heart rate measured in a first state among the sleep states and the heart rate measured between a time point before a designated time from the user's wake up time and the wake up time as a sleep heart rate,
select one of the heart rate variability measured in the first state among the sleep states and the heart rate variability measured between the time point before the designated time from the user's wake up time and the wake up time as sleep heart rate variability, and
perform at least one operation based on the sleep heart rate and/or the sleep heart rate variability.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because receiving user physiological parameter data, mapping and storing the patient data to sleep states based on user movement, selecting heart rate and heart rate variability, and performing an operation are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 10 & 19 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, & 20 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2-3, 11-12, & 20 recites selecting a heart rate and heart rate variability based on a condition; Claims 4 & 13 recites a user state, Claims 5 & 14 recites distinguishing sleep stages and storing the sleep stage data with heart rate data, Claims 6 & 15 recites displaying sleep data, Claims 7-9 & 16-18 recites providing vitality state data including guidance and score data. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 10 & 19, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a communication circuit configured to communicate with an external electronic device configured to measure movements and/or bio-signals of a user of the electronic device;
a processor; and
a memory,
wherein when executed by the processor, the memory is configured to store instructions for causing the electronic device to:
receive the user's heart rate and/or heart rate variability measured by the external electronic device,
map and store the heart rate and/or the heart rate variability to the user's sleep state determined based on the user's movement measured by the external electronic device,
select one of the heart rate measured in a first state among the sleep states and the heart rate measured between a time point before a designated time from the user's wake up time and the wake up time as a sleep heart rate,
select one of the heart rate variability measured in the first state among the sleep states and the heart rate variability measured between the time point before the designated time from the user's wake up time and the wake up time as sleep heart rate variability, and
perform at least one operation based on the sleep heart rate and/or the sleep heart rate variability.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the electronic device, processor, & memory the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of a communication circuit configured to communicate with an external electronic device configured to measure movements and/or bio-signals of a user of the electronic device; the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 10 & 19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the electronic device, processor, & memory the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of a communication circuit configured to communicate with an external electronic device configured to measure movements and/or bio-signals of a user of the electronic device; the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)) – see Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinnunen (US20220375590).
As per claim 1, Kinnunen discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a communication circuit configured to communicate with an external electronic device configured to measure movements and/or bio-signals of a user of the electronic device (para. 38: device includes sensors for capturing movement and other patient parameters);
a processor (para. 49: processor); and
a memory (para. 49: memory),
wherein when executed by the processor, the memory is configured to store instructions for causing the electronic device to:
receive the user's heart rate and/or heart rate variability measured by the external electronic device (para. 51: heart rate and HRV data obtained),
map and store the heart rate and/or the heart rate variability to the user's sleep state determined based on the user's movement measured by the external electronic device (Fig. 3; para. 104: system maps and stores movement data with heart rate and HRV data with sleep staging labels),
select one of the heart rate measured in a first state among the sleep states and the heart rate measured between a time point before a designated time from the user's wake up time and the wake up time as a sleep heart rate (Fig. 3; para. 103-104: system obtains heart rate data during wake up time and sleep; heart rate during sleep is selected and labeled with various sleep stages),
select one of the heart rate variability measured in the first state among the sleep states and the heart rate variability measured between the time point before the designated time from the user's wake up time and the wake up time as sleep heart rate variability (Fig. 3; para. 103-104: system obtains HRV data during wake up time and sleep; HRV during sleep is selected and labeled with various sleep stages), and
perform at least one operation based on the sleep heart rate and/or the sleep heart rate variability (para. 74: device calculates values based on the sampled/calculated physiological data such as sleep metrics (e.g., Sleep score), activity metrics, and readiness metrics).
As per claim 2, Kinnunen discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instruction for causing the electronic device to select the heart rate comprises an instruction for causing the electronic device to select a smaller heart rate of the heart rate measured in a first state among the sleep states and a heart rate measured between a time point before a designated time from the user's wake up time and the wake up time as a sleep heart rate (Fig. 3; para. 103-104: system obtains heart rate data during wake up time and sleep; heart rate during sleep is selected and labeled with various sleep stages; heart rate during wake up time is higher than heart rate during sleep stages).
As per claim 3, Kinnunen discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instruction for causing the electronic device to select the heart rate variability comprises an instruction for causing the electronic device to select larger heart rate variability of the heart rate variability measured in a first state among the sleep states and heart rate variability measured between a time point before a designated time from the user's wake up time and the wake up time as sleep heart rate variability (Fig. 3; para. 103-104: system obtains HRV data during wake-up time and sleep; HRV during sleep is selected and labeled with various sleep stages; HRV during wake up time is lower than HRV sleep stages).
As per claim 4, Kinnunen discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first state comprises a state in which the user's movement measured by the external electronic device is smallest (Fig. 3; para. 104: system maps and stores movement data with heart rate and HRV data with sleep staging labels; movement is lowest during sleep periods).
As per claim 5, Kinnunen discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to further store an instruction for causing the electronic device to:
distinguish sleep stages according to the user's movement measured by the external electronic device and/or the user's heart rate measured by the external electronic device (Fig. 3; para. 104: system maps and stores movement data with heart rate and HRV data with sleep staging labels), and
store data in which the heart rate and/or the heart rate variability are/is mapped to the distinguished sleep stages in the memory (Fig. 3; para. 104: system maps and stores movement data with heart rate and HRV data with sleep staging labels).
As per claim 6, Kinnunen discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one operation comprises an operation of displaying the sleep heart rate and/or the sleep heart rate variability (Fig. 5; heart rate & HRV displayed to user).
As per claim 7, Kinnunen discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one operation comprises an operation of providing information related to the user's vitality state determined based on the sleep heart rate and/or the sleep heart rate variability (Fig. 4: various metrics determined based on patient physiological parameters).
As per claim 8, Kinnunen discloses the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the information related to the user's vitality state comprises guide information based on the user's vitality state (Fig. 4: various metrics determined based on patient physiological parameters including sleep information).
As per claim 9, Kinnunen discloses the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the information related to the user's vitality state comprises a vitality score indicating the user's vitality state (Fig. 4: various metrics including a score determined based on patient physiological parameters and output).
Claims 10-18 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-9, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 19-20 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-2, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bandy (US20170055898) teaches to determining sleep stages and sleep events using sensor data. In some implementations, sensor data is obtained over a time period while a person is sleeping. The time period is divided into a series of intervals. Heart rate and changes in the heart rate are analyzed over the intervals. Based on the analysis of the heart rate changes, sleep stage labels are assigned to different portions of the time period. An indication of the assigned sleep stage labels is provided.
Muzet (US20140088378) teaches to a system and method for determining sleep, sleep stage and/or sleep stage transition of a person, including heart rate detecting means configured for detecting a heart rate of the person, movement detecting means configured for detecting a movement of a part of the body of the person, where the detected movement is caused by a skeletal muscle of the body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights