Patent Application 17355959 - INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS INFORMATION - Rejection

Patent Application 17355959 - INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS INFORMATION

Title: INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM WITH EXECUTABLE INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM STORED THEREON, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM

Application Information

• Invention Title: INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM WITH EXECUTABLE INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM STORED THEREON, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM
• Application Number: 17355959
• Submission Date: 2025-05-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2021-06-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2021-06-23T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 368
• National Sub-Class: 009000
• Examiner Employee Number: 97640
• Art Unit: 2833
• Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 7

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0289332🔗
• US 0151603🔗

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the processor and controller do not "detect motion" (line 6 of claim 1, line 7 of claim 13) and "detect presence" (line 9 of claim 1, line 8 of claim 13), but -determine motion- and -determine presence-.
Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.


Claims 1-14, 16-17, and 19-22 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.
Claims 1 and 11-13 recite stopping a first notification operation “based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding a predetermined amount of movement” and continuing a second notification operation “based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement.” Whether the limitations refer to same or different results is unclear. For the purpose of examination, they have been read as -based on a first result…- and -based on a second result…-
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a result of sensing the motion of the object” in line 5. Whether this limitation refers to the first or second result of claim 1, or a third result is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it has been read as -the first result of sensing the motion of the object-.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the result of sensing the motion of the object” in line 5. Whether this limitation refers to the first or second result of claim 1, or another result is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it has been read as -the respective first or second result of sensing the motion of the object-.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.

Claims 1-2, 11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koki (JP 2009232925) in view of Trejo (MultipleAlarms.pdf) and Padiy (WO 2008111002).
Regarding claim 1, Koki teaches an information processing apparatus ([0018]), comprising: a time counter configured to manage time (abstract); a notification unit configured to perform a notification operation ([0024]); a sensor configured to contactlessly sense an object ([0002]); and a processor ([0023]) and a memory ([0030]), wherein the processor is configured to determine motion of the object based on an output from the sensor ([0002]), and the processor is further configured to set a first notification condition, associated with a first notification type (the type being notifications that are first), during a first notification setting operation (the operation of setting alarms to wake up), wherein the first notification condition is associated with a current time and a first setting time set by a user ([0024]), control the notification unit to perform a first notification operation when the first notification condition is satisfied, and control the notification unit to stop the first notification operation based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding a predetermined amount of movement ([0002] and [0005]: “measuring an amount of body movement”).
Koki does not teach the processor being configured to set a second notification condition, associated with a second notification type different from the first notification type, during the first notification setting operation, wherein the second notification condition is associated with the current time and a second setting time set by the user, control the notification unit to perform a second notification operation when the second notification condition is satisfied, control the notification unit to stop the second notification operation based on sensing an absence of the object, and continue the second notification operation based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement, in association with sensing the presence of the object.
Trejo teaches a processor (Trejo is a smartphone, which has a processor) being configured to control a notification unit (“alarm clock”) to set a second notification condition, associated with a second notification type (the type being notifications that are second) different from a first notification type (the type being notifications that are first), during a first notification setting operation (the operation of setting alarms for the morning), wherein the second notification condition is associated with a current time and a second setting time (6:50 AM) set by a user. Trejo also teaches setting a first notification condition associated with the first notification type during the first notification setting operation, wherein the first notification conditioned is associated with the current time and a first setting time (6:30 AM) set by the user. Trejo teaches first and second notification operations (the first operation being the 6:30 AM alarm, and the second being the 6:50 AM alarm).
Padiy teaches a sensor sensing an object’s motion to detect presence (“the optical unit 250 is arranged to use the…Doppler shift effect” in page 6, 3rd paragraph and “the optical unit 250 is adapted to also detect the presence” in page 10, 3rd paragraph), and stopping a notification operation based on sensing absence of the object (Padiy discloses switching “on/off the alarm unit based on detecting the presence of the baby in the bed” and deactivating “the alarm unit…due to the baby taken out of the bed” in page 10, 3rd paragraph).
Alarm clocks generally function by continuously alarming until a user satisfies a condition to turn the alarm off. Therefore, if a shut-off condition for a notification operation is to have a sensor sense that a user has exceeded a predetermined amount of movement (as taught in Koki [0001]), then the user failing to do so would cause the notification operation to continue.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the processor of Koki to perform a second notification operation when a second notification condition based on the current time and a second setting time is satisfied, as suggested by Trejo, wherein the second notification operation stops based on sensed absence of the object, as suggested by Padiy, and the second notification operation continues based on a negative result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these configurations to ensure a user has awoken because additional alarms add insurance, and requiring the user to vacate the bed requires greater action than mere movement.
	Regarding claim 2, Koki in view of Trejo and Padiy (KTP) teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to control the information processing apparatus to estimate a state of sleep of the user based on the output from the sensor ([0002] and [0006] of Koki).
Koki does not teach the sensor including a Doppler sensor and the processor being further configured to control the information processing apparatus to at least sense a motion of the object based on an output from the Doppler sensor.
Padiy teaches a sensor including a Doppler sensor (Padiy, page 2, 3rd paragraph) and a processor configured to control the information processing apparatus to at least sense a motion of an object based on an output from the Doppler sensor (abstract of Padiy).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sensor of Koki for the Doppler sensor of Padiy and configured Koki’s processor to at least sense motion of the object based on an output from the Doppler sensor, as suggested by Padiy. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to achieve the predictable result of monitoring a user’s sleep status to know whether a user has awoken or not.
	Regarding claim 20, KTP teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first notification operation relates to a first type of alarm function (waking an object), and the second notification operation relates to a second type of alarm function (a redundancy check for ensuring the object wakes up).
Regarding claim 11, Koki teaches an information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus ([0018]), the method comprising: managing time (abstract); performing a notification operation ([0024]) and contactlessly sensing an object, wherein the method further comprises: sensing motion of the object based on an output from a sensor ([0002]); setting a first notification condition, associated with a first notification type (the type being notifications that are first), during a first notification setting operation (the operation of setting alarms to wake up), wherein the first notification condition is associated with a current time and a first setting time set by a user ([0024]), performing a first notification operation when the first notification condition is satisfied, and stopping the first notification operation based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding a predetermined amount of movement ([0002] and [0005]: “measuring an amount of body movement”).
Koki does not teach setting a second notification condition, associated with a second notification type different from the first notification type, during the first notification setting operation, wherein the second notification condition is associated with the current time and a second setting time set by the user, performing a second notification operation when the second notification condition is satisfied, stopping the second notification operation based on sensing an absence of the object, and continuing the second notification operation based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement, in association with sensing the presence of the object.
Trejo teaches setting a second notification condition, associated with a second notification type (the type being notifications that are second) different from a first notification type (the type being notifications that are first), during a first notification setting operation (the operation of setting alarms for the morning), wherein the second notification condition is associated with a current time and a second setting time (6:50 AM) set by a user. Trejo also teaches setting a first notification condition associated with the first notification type during the first notification setting operation, wherein the first notification conditioned is associated with the current time and a first setting time (6:30 AM) set by the user. Trejo teaches performing first and second notification operations (the first operation being the 6:30 AM alarm, and the second being the 6:50 AM alarm).
Padiy teaches sensing an object’s motion to detect presence (“the optical unit 250 is arranged to use the…Doppler shift effect” in page 6, 3rd paragraph and “the optical unit 250 is adapted to also detect the presence” in page 10, 3rd paragraph), and stopping a notification operation based on sensing absence of the object (Padiy discloses switching “on/off the alarm unit based on detecting the presence of the baby in the bed” and deactivating “the alarm unit…due to the baby taken out of the bed” in page 10, 3rd paragraph).
Alarm clocks generally function by continuously alarming until a user satisfies a condition to turn the alarm off. Therefore, if a shut-off condition for a notification operation is to have a sensor sense that a user has exceeded a predetermined amount of movement (as taught in Koki [0001]), then the user failing to do so would cause the notification operation to continue.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Koki to include steps of performing a second notification operation when a second notification condition based on the current time and a second setting time is satisfied, as suggested by Trejo, stopping the second notification operation based on sensed absence of the object, as suggested by Padiy, and continuing the second notification operation based on a negative result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these configurations to ensure a user has awoken because additional alarms add insurance, and requiring the user to vacate the bed requires greater action than mere movement.
Regarding claim 13, Koki teaches an information processing system comprising: a time counter configured to manage time (abstract); a notification unit configured ([0024]); a sensor configured to contactlessly sense an object ([0002]); and a controller configured to determine motion of the object based on an output from the sensor ([0002]), wherein the controller is further configured to set a first notification condition, associated with a first notification type (the type being notifications that are first), during a first notification setting operation (the operation of setting alarms to wake up), wherein the first notification condition is associated with a current time and a first setting time set by a user ([0024]), control the notification unit to perform a first notification operation when the first notification condition is satisfied, and control the notification unit to stop the first notification operation based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding a predetermined amount of movement ([0002] and [0005]: “measuring an amount of body movement”).
Koki does not teach the controller being configured to set a second notification condition, associated with a second notification type different from the first notification type, during the first notification setting operation, wherein the second notification condition is associated with the current time and a second setting time set by the user, control the notification unit to perform a second notification operation when the second notification condition is satisfied, control the notification unit to stop the second notification operation based on sensing an absence of the object, and continue the second notification operation based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement, in association with sensing the presence of the object.
Trejo teaches a controller (Trejo is a smartphone, which has a controller) being configured to control a notification unit (“alarm clock”) to set a second notification condition, associated with a second notification type (the type being notifications that are second) different from a first notification type (the type being notifications that are first), during a first notification setting operation (the operation of setting alarms for the morning), wherein the second notification condition is associated with a current time and a second setting time (6:50 AM) set by a user. Trejo also teaches setting a first notification condition associated with the first notification type during the first notification setting operation, wherein the first notification conditioned is associated with the current time and a first setting time (6:30 AM) set by the user. Trejo teaches first and second notification operations (the first operation being the 6:30 AM alarm, and the second being the 6:50 AM alarm).
Padiy teaches a sensor sensing an object’s motion to detect presence (“the optical unit 250 is arranged to use the…Doppler shift effect” in page 6, 3rd paragraph and “the optical unit 250 is adapted to also detect the presence” in page 10, 3rd paragraph), and stopping a notification operation based on sensing absence of the object (Padiy discloses switching “on/off the alarm unit based on detecting the presence of the baby in the bed” and deactivating “the alarm unit…due to the baby taken out of the bed” in page 10, 3rd paragraph).
Alarm clocks generally function by continuously alarming until a user satisfies a condition to turn the alarm off. Therefore, if a shut-off condition for a notification operation is to have a sensor sense that a user has exceeded a predetermined amount of movement (as taught in Koki [0001]), then the user failing to do so would cause the notification operation to continue.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the controller of Koki to perform a second notification operation when a second notification condition based on the current time and a second setting time is satisfied, as suggested by Trejo, wherein the second notification operation stops based on sensed absence of the object, as suggested by Padiy, and the second notification operation continues based on a negative result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these configurations to ensure a user has awoken because additional alarms add insurance, and requiring the user to vacate the bed requires greater action than mere movement.
	Regarding claim 21, KTP teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first notification condition is associated with a user awakening (the first notification wakes a user up), and the second notification condition is associated with the user entering a sleep state (the second notification wakes a user up if the user enters a sleep state after the first notification).
	Regarding claim 22, KTP teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control the notification unit to perform the first notification operation or the second notification operation in an on-time mode (the first and second notifications occur on-time as set by the first and second setting times) or an easy wake-up mode.

Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KTP as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shouldice (US 2016/0151603).
Regarding claim 14, KTP teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor measures a cumulative value associated with a magnitude of motion of the object ([0006] of Koki: “accumulated body motion amount”).
KTP does not teach the processor being further configured to generate, for display, a visual indication associated with the cumulative value.
Shouldice teaches a processor configured to generate, for display, a visual indication associated with measured sleep data ([0102]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the processor of Koki to generate, for display, a visual indication associated with the measured cumulative value that is associated with the magnitude of motion of the object, as suggested by Shouldice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a visual record would allow a user to know how much their body (the object) moves while sleeping, which may be useful for health reasons as an indicator of how peacefully or fitfully the user sleeps.

Claims 3-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KTP as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Yamaji (US 2018/0289332).
	Regarding claim 3, KTP teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
KTP does not teach the processor being configured to control the information processing apparatus to estimate the state of sleep of the object by sensing a breath signal from the Doppler sensor.
Yamaji teaches a processor configured to control the information processing apparatus to estimate the state of sleep of the object by sensing a breath signal from the Doppler sensor ([0003] of Yamaji).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the processor of KTP to control the information processing apparatus to estimate the state of sleep of the object by sensing a breath signal from the Doppler sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make configuration to know how much sleep the object gets, which may be useful for health reasons.
	Regarding claim 4, KTP in view of Yamaji (KTPY) teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to control the information processing apparatus to at least provide a detection value indicating a magnitude of motion of the object ([0142] of Yamaji), and calculate a cumulative value from the detection value ([0142])
	Regarding claim 5, KTPY teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the cumulative value from detection values over a period of a first length ([0174]-[0175] of Yamaji).
	Regarding claim 6, KTPY teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to control the information processing apparatus to calculate the cumulative value from the detection values over a detection period ([0142], [0174], and [0175] of Yamaji). Fig. 8 of Yamaji shows that calculation of detection values after a detection period (P11-P13).
	Regarding claim 7, KTPY teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
KTP does not teach the processor being further configured to control the information processing apparatus to at least control a display to show information indicating the cumulative value.
Yamaji teaches a processor being further configured to control the information processing apparatus to at least control a display to show information indicating the cumulative value. [0142] teaches a cumulative value being a motion detection value, and P20 in Fig. 8 and P33 in Fig. 16 teaches outputting a result indicating the value. See also [0219] and [0238].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the display of Yamaji with the apparatus of Koki. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to create a report of how peacefully a user sleeps, which may be viewed out of curiosity or for healthcare reasons (see [0185] of Yamaji).
Regarding claim 9, KTPY teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to control the information processing apparatus to stop at least the first notification operation by the notification unit when a result of sensing the motion of the object indicates continued motion of the object for a first period ([0009] of Koki).
Regarding claim 12, Koki teaches a processor of an information processing apparatus including a notification unit that performs a notification operation ([0024]) and a sensor that contactlessly senses an object ([0002]), wherein the information processing apparatus provides executions comprising: managing time (abstract); and performing the notification operation by the notification unit ([0024]), wherein the information processing apparatus is furthered caused to provide executions comprising: determining motion of the object based on an output from the sensor ([0002]); setting a first notification condition, associated with a first notification type (the type being notifications that are first), during a first notification setting operation (the operation of setting alarms to wake up), wherein the first notification condition is associated with a current time and a first setting time set by a user ([0024]), performing a first notification operation when the first notification condition is satisfied, and stopping the first notification operation based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding a predetermined amount of movement ([0002] and [0005]: “measuring an amount of body movement”).
Koki does not teach setting a second notification condition, associated with a second notification type different from the first notification type, during the first notification setting operation, wherein the second notification condition is associated with the current time and a second setting time set by the user, performing a second notification operation when the second notification condition is satisfied, stopping the second notification operation based on sensing an absence of the object, and continuing the second notification operation based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement, in association with sensing the presence of the object.
Trejo teaches setting a second notification condition, associated with a second notification type (the type being notifications that are second) different from a first notification type (the type being notifications that are first), during a first notification setting operation (the operation of setting alarms for the morning), wherein the second notification condition is associated with a current time and a second setting time (6:50 AM) set by a user. Trejo also teaches setting a first notification condition associated with the first notification type during the first notification setting operation, wherein the first notification conditioned is associated with the current time and a first setting time (6:30 AM) set by the user. Trejo teaches performing first and second notification operations (the first operation being the 6:30 AM alarm, and the second being the 6:50 AM alarm).
Padiy teaches sensing an object’s motion to detect presence (“the optical unit 250 is arranged to use the…Doppler shift effect” in page 6, 3rd paragraph and “the optical unit 250 is adapted to also detect the presence” in page 10, 3rd paragraph), and stopping a notification operation based on sensing absence of the object (Padiy discloses switching “on/off the alarm unit based on detecting the presence of the baby in the bed” and deactivating “the alarm unit…due to the baby taken out of the bed” in page 10, 3rd paragraph).
Alarm clocks generally function by continuously alarming until a user satisfies a condition to turn the alarm off. Therefore, if a shut-off condition for a notification operation is to have a sensor sense that a user has exceeded a predetermined amount of movement (as taught in Koki [0001]), then the user failing to do so would cause the notification operation to continue.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Koki to include executions of performing a second notification operation when a second notification condition based on the current time and a second setting time is satisfied, as suggested by Trejo, stopping the second notification operation based on sensed absence of the object, as suggested by Padiy, and continuing the second notification operation based on a negative result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement, as suggested in Koki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these configurations to ensure a user has awoken because additional alarms add insurance, and requiring the user to vacate the bed requires greater action than mere movement.
KTP does not teach the executions of the information processing apparatus being caused by stored instructions of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Yamaji teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored instructions thereupon (title, [0002], and [0105]) that, when executed by a processor, cause a sensor system to analyze whether a condition has been satisfied ([0196]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the apparatus of KTP with the storage medium of Yamaji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that a user may have a database that stores information for easy access and to prevent the information from being lost ([0104] of Yamaji). The storage medium would also allow a user to easily manipulate or customize programs governing the apparatus ([0112]-[0113]) and connect to a network to share data ([0107]-[0108]).

Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KTPY as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Shouldice and Kamel (US 6,011,467).
Regarding claim 8, KTPY teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7.
Koki does not teach the processor being configured to control the information processing apparatus to control the display to show an indicator varied in length in accordance with a magnitude of the cumulative value toward a position indicating the threshold value.
Yamaji teaches comparing the cumulative value to the set threshold value [0142] and [0196]).
Shouldice teaches representing sleep information as an indicator varied in length in accordance with the magnitude of a value toward a maximum value ([0106]).
Kamel teaches setting a threshold value on a bar graph so that a measured value represented as an indicator will vary in length as the measured value moves above or below the threshold value (Fig. 7, abstract, and column 8, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Koki to show an indicator varied in length in accordance with the magnitude of the cumulative value, as taught by Shouldice, wherein the indicator moves towards a position indicating the threshold value, as taught by Kamel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that a user may customize the threshold value and decide how much motion is required to turn off an alarm (Koki teaches shutting off an alarm after detecting movement in [0009]).

Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KTP as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Nagano (WO 2017163941).
Regarding claim 10, KTP teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to control the notification unit continue the first notification operation or the second notification operation when the result of sensing the motion of the object does not indicate detection of the motion of the object. Claim 1’s rejection argues that because alarm clocks generally function by continuously alarming until a user satisfies a condition to turn the alarm off, it would have been obvious to continue the second notification operation when the result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement is negative. This negative result is equivalent to sensing that the motion of the object does not indicate detection of motion.
KTP does not teach the processor being further configured to continue the first or second notification operation while the estimated state of sleep of the object is asleep.
Nagano teaches an alarm unit that does not turn off until biometric information determines a user has woken up (lines 214-218).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of KTP so that the first or second notification operation would continue as long as the user does not sufficiently move to change the estimated state of sleep to be awake. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because otherwise, the notification operation would turn off without a user waking up, which would cause the notification operation to fail as a way to wake a user up.

Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KTP as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dolecki (US 20180081527).
Regarding claim 16, KTP teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
KTP does not teach the processor being further configured to calculate a sleep score representing a sleep sufficiency degree of a user.
Dolecki teaches a processor ([0033]) configured to calculate a sleep score representing a sleep sufficiency degree of a user ([0046]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured to processor of KTP to calculate sleep score, as suggested by Dolecki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this configuration to monitor how a user’s sleep score, and therefore sleep, may be improved.
Regarding claim 17, KTP in view of Dolecki teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the sleep score is higher when the user is in a deep sleep state and lower when the user is in a light sleep state ([0046] of Dolecki).

Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KTP as applied to claim 1, and further in view of PCMag (MultipleUI.png).
Regarding claim 19, KTP teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
KTP does not teach the user setting the first setting time using a first user interface element of a user interface, and the user setting the second setting time using a second user interface element of the user interface.
PCMag shows a user setting first and second setting times using first and second user interface elements of a user interface. See image below, which shows two setting times, each with their own UI element.

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    1031
    1319
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale

	It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing apparatus so that each setting time has its own user interface element, as taught by PCMag. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to make setting and adjusting the setting time easier and faster.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-04-08 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the art of record “does not describe setting notification conditions, associated with different notification types.” However, the word “type” has not been given a specific meaning. Consequently, the first and second notifications of KTP are different types because the first notification is the type that occurs earlier, and the second notification is the type that occurs later.
Applicant also argues that the setting of the first and second notification conditions in KTP does not occur during a singular notification setting operation (the claimed “first notification setting operation.” However, the phrase “setting operation” has not been given a specific meaning. Consequently, the first and second notification conditions are set during the singular operation of setting alarms for waking up in the morning.
Specifically, Applicant argues that “there is no relationship between” Trejo’s 6:30 alarm and 6:50 alarm; the relationship between these alarms is that they are both for waking up in the morning.
Applicant argues against Padiy individually by arguing that Padiy does not describe (1) setting notification conditions, associated with different notification types, during a notification setting operation; (2) stopping a first notification based on sensing absence of an object, or motion amount exceeding a certain value; and (3) stopping a second notification based on sensing absence of the object while continuing the second notification based on a result of sensing the motion of the object exceeding the predetermined amount of movement, in association with sensing the presence of the object.
However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.  See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached on 571-272-2009. 
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.




/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/               Examiner, Art Unit 2833

/renee s luebke/              Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2833