DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 06/09/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “Based on the Examiner's helpful comments during the interview, it is believed that these amendments provide a particular treatment (minimize the alertness impairment during work periods) that is being done in response to a particular sleep-wake schedule solution to minimize the alertness impairment of the individual at a future time. In addition, the device and system of claims 15 and 18 receiving confirmation from the individual or at least one motion detection sensor of sleep by the individual, when the sleep differs the schedule, creating a new solution. Although these particular amendments were not discussed during the Examiner interview, it is believed that this claim amendment this brings the claims into patentable subject matter under the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that independent claims 1, 15, and 18 fall within patentable subject matter”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims, as currently constructed, are clear directed to an abstract idea and do not recite anything that sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor integrate the recited abstract to a practical application. The Examiner further notes that merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; and the step of outputting could clear amount to post-solution activities and do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a method and system (claims 1, 15, and 18) for optimizing a schedule for an individual minimize alertness impairment during work periods using a processor, comprising: The step of: “predicting a series of alertness impairments for the schedule; evaluating a plurality of test points using the selected wake period as a reference point; repeating the above steps beginning with predicting when neither a predetermined number of iterations has been reached nor no more wake periods remain”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept, as evidenced by the specification or otherwise could fall under a mental process; likewise, the steps of: “selecting a wake period from the schedule having the largest alertness impairment during a work period of the selected wake period”; “selecting a test point of the plurality test point having the largest alertness impairment improvement for the selected wake period”; under the broadest reasonable interpretation could fall under a mental process. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “a user interface”, “a memory unit”, “a processor”, “code”, “a display” either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 0139-0151, and fig.7A) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0149]-[0151]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “receiving or retrieving at least one of an initial schedule and/or constraints on which the schedule will be developed”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities” are also well-known, routine and conventional activities; and the further steps of “outputting the schedule as the optimized schedule to the individual so as to minimize the alertness impairment during work periods”; and “sleeping by the individual pursuant to the schedule”, could amount to post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a user interface”, “a memory unit”, “a processor”, “code”, “a display” either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para 0139-0151, and fig.7A) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0149]-[0151]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “creating, receiving or retrieving an initial schedule and/or constraints on which the schedule will be developed”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities” are also well-known, routine and conventional activities; and the further steps of “outputting the schedule as the optimized schedule to the individual so as to minimize the alertness impairment during work periods”; and “sleeping by the individual pursuant to the schedule”, could amount to post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
5.2 Dependent claims 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20 merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical computations/relationships (claim 2), “wherein predicting uses an the alertness impairment model that predicts alertness impairment [P(t)] includes
PNG
media_image1.png
516
1112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
1118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” (mathematical concept). (claim 3); “after repeating and before outputting: predicting a new series of alertness impairments for the schedule; and for each work period, evaluating a plurality of test points and selecting a test point from the plurality of test points that decreases the alertness impairment for the work period the most.” (mental process or otherwise could fall under mathematical concept); (claim 4); “wherein the plurality test points for each work period are to adjust a start of the work period by 15 minutes or 30 minutes.” (mental process); (claim 5); “after repeating and before performing predicting a second time: predicting a new series of alertness impairments for the schedule; selecting a wake period having the largest alertness impairment during a non-work period of said wake period; period; evaluating a plurality of test points using the selected wake period as a reference point; selecting the test point having the largest alertness impairment improvement for the selected wake updating the schedule using the selected test point; and repeating the above steps beginning with predicting when neither a predetermined number of iterations has been reached nor no more wake periods remain” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 6) “wherein the improvement in alertness impairment is measured based on a change in an area under the curve for the series of alertness impairments in the selected period” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 7); “after repeating and before outputting: predicting a second series of alertness impairments for the schedule; selecting a wake test point of period having the largest alertness impairment during a non-work period of said wake period; period; evaluating a plurality of test points using the selected wake period as a reference point; selecting a wake test point of the plurality of test points having the largest alertness impairment improvement for the selected wake; updating the schedule using the selected wake test point; and repeating the above steps beginning with predicting when neither a predetermined number of iterations has been reached nor no more wake periods remain.” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 8) “wherein the improvement in alertness impairment is measured based on the change in an area under the curve for the series of alertness impairments in the selected period” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 9) “wherein the plurality of test points for work and non-work periods includes create a new predetermined time sleep period after a start of the existing sleep period, increase sleep duration by a predetermined time, increase the sleep period by a predetermined time, delay the sleep period after the reference work period by a predetermined time, decrease the sleep duration by a predetermined time and create a new predetermined time sleep period after the start of the sleep period, decrease the sleep duration in the sleep period after the reference work period by a predetermined time and add a predetermined time new sleep period after the reference work period, increase the sleep duration of the sleep period and decrease the sleep duration of a sleep period two sleep periods before the reference work period by a predetermined time, and increase the sleep duration of the sleep period by the duration of the sleep period two sleep periods before the reference work period while remove the earlier sleep period” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process); (claim 10-11) (10) “wherein the predetermined time is a half hour or 15 minutes”. (11). “wherein the plurality of test points for work periods further includes increasing and decreasing a length of the work period by a predetermined time.” (mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept); (claim 12) “wherein predicting alertness impairment includes using at least one of sleep latency model and/or a sleep duration model to determine at least one of when the sleep duration will begin and/or how long the sleep duration will be” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process);
(claims 13-14) “
PNG
media_image3.png
432
1120
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(mathematical concept), all of which further amount to further mathematical concept and/or mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6.1 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 e.g. provides for a method for optimizing a schedule for an individual using a processor, and recites the limitation of “sleeping by the individual…”, it is unclear to the examiner what is meant by the step of: “sleeping by …pursuant to…”, the claim does not set forth the manner by which said step of sleeping could be achieved as claimed. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Conclusion
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected and 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 July 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights