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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/11/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the search and/or examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. However, in the present application, the prior art search is not coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armistead (US 20110203588) in view of Eklund (US 6889691)
Regarding claim 1, Armistead discloses A method comprising: extracting inspiratory portions of breaths of a patient from respiratory flow rate signals generated by a flow rate sensor (404f) (paragraph 0077, 0079-0081, 0084); applying labels (mild, moderate, severe) to the inspiratory portions (fig 10), wherein the labels indicate whether the inspiratory portions are flow limited (paragraph 0091-0093, 0119, 0122-0125); and adjusting a treatment pressure of a respiratory pressure therapy being delivered to the patient by a respiratory pressure therapy device based on the labels applied to the inspiratory portions (paragraph 0093-0094, 0188-0196).
Armistead discloses of the claimed limitations except calculating feature vectors representative of the inspiratory portions and applying label based on the feature vectors. Eklund teaches calculating feature vectors representative of the inspiratory portions (col. 5, lines 9-22) and applying label based on the feature vectors (col. 9, lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armistead’s analytical methods by Eklund’s analytical methods which utilize feature vectors for the purpose of allowing for earlier recognition and intervention and improved testing and treatment.
Regarding claim 2, Armistead discloses all of the claim languages except The method of claim 1, wherein the feature vectors are non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) feature vectors. Eklund teaches the use of feature vectors (col. 5, lines 9-22, col. 9, lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armistead’s analytical methods by Eklund’s analytical methods which utilize feature vectors. Non-negative matrix factorization are well-known ways of calculation of feature vectors and the use of them in the method of Armistead would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and allow for earlier recognition, intervention, and improved testing and treatment.
Regarding claim 3, Armistead discloses all of the claimed limitations except The method of claim 2, wherein calculating the NMF feature vectors comprises multiplying the inspiratory portions by pseudoinverses of factor matrices. Eklund teaches the use of feature vectors (col. 5, lines 9-22, col. 9, lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armistead’s analytical methods by Eklund’s analytical methods which utilize feature vectors. Non-negative matrix factorization are well-known ways of calculation of feature vectors and the use of them in the method of Armistead would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and allow for earlier recognition, intervention, and improved testing and treatment.
Regarding claim 4, Armistead discloses all of the claimed limitations except The method of claim 3, wherein each factor matrix is a left factor matrix of a non-negative matrix factorization of a database matrix of inspiratory portions. Eklund teaches the use of feature vectors (col. 5, lines 9-22, col. 9, lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armistead’s analytical methods by Eklund’s analytical methods which utilize feature vectors. Non-negative matrix factorization are well-known ways of calculation of feature vectors and the use of them in the method of Armistead would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and allow for earlier recognition, intervention, and improved testing and treatment.
Regarding claim 5, Armistead discloses all of the claimed limitations except The method of claim 4, wherein the non-negative matrix factorization is based on sparsity constraints of the left factor matrix and a right factor matrix. Eklund teaches the use of feature vectors (col. 5, lines 9-22, col. 9, lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armistead’s analytical methods by Eklund’s analytical methods which utilize feature vectors. Non-negative matrix factorization are well-known ways of calculation of feature vectors and the use of them in the method of Armistead would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and allow for earlier recognition, intervention, and improved testing and treatment.
Regarding claim 6, Armistead discloses all of the claimed inventions except The method of claim 3, wherein the pseudoinverses are left inverses of the factor matrices. Eklund teaches the use of feature vectors (col. 5, lines 9-22, col. 9, lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armistead’s analytical methods by Eklund’s analytical methods which utilize feature vectors. Pseudoinverses are well-known ways of calculation of feature vectors and the use of them in the method of Armistead would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and allow for earlier recognition, intervention, and improved testing and treatment.
Regarding claim 7, Armistead discloses all of the claimed limitations except The method of claim 1, wherein the feature vectors are difference filter (DF) feature vectors. Eklund teaches the use of feature vectors (col. 5, lines 9-22, col. 9, lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armistead’s analytical methods by Eklund’s analytical methods which utilize feature vectors. Difference filter feature vectors are well-known ways of calculation of feature vectors and the use of them in the method of Armistead would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and allow for earlier recognition, intervention, and improved testing and treatment.
Regarding claim 8, Armistead discloses all of the claimed limitations except The method of claim 7, wherein features in the DF feature vectors are calculated by summing samples of the inspiratory portions with a weighting of either +1 or -1, and wherein the weightings are coefficients of binary-valued difference filters. Eklund teaches the use of feature vectors (col. 5, lines 9-22, col. 9, lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armistead’s analytical methods by Eklund’s analytical methods which utilize feature vectors. Difference filter feature vectors are well-known ways of calculation of feature vectors and the use of them in the method of Armistead would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and allow for earlier recognition, intervention, and improved testing and treatment.
Regarding claim 9, Armistead discloses The method of claim 1, wherein applying the labels to the inspiratory portions comprises applying a binary classifier to the feature vectors (paragraph 0337, 0340).
Regarding claim 10 Armistead discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the binary classifier is a linear classifier (paragraph 0052, 0269, 0337, 0340).
Regarding claim 11, Armistead discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the binary classifier has been trained using a Support Vector Machine and a plurality of labelled inspiratory portions (paragraph 0337).
Regarding claim 12, Armistead discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the binary classifier has been trained by optimizing an objective function over a parameter space of the classifier (paragraph 0052, 0269, 0337, 0340).
Regarding claim 13, Armistead discloses The method of claim 1 further comprising: computing a metric indicating a degree of inspiratory flow limitation of the patient based on the labels applied to the inspiratory portions (paragraph 0021, 0091, 0093).
Regarding claim 14, Armistead discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the metric is a fraction of a total number of the breaths having an inspiratory portion to which a label has been applied that indicates the inspiratory portion is flow limited (paragraph 0021, 0091-0093, 0101, 0102, 0124).
Regarding claim 15, Armistead discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the metric is an average rate of the breaths having an inspiratory portion to which a label has been applied that indicates the inspiratory portion is flow limited (paragraph 0068-0071).
Regarding claim 16, Armistead discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the metric is a maximum rate of the breaths having an inspiratory portion to which a label has been applied that indicates the inspiratory portion is flow limited (paragraph 0123, 0192, 0232).
Regarding claim 18, Armistead discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting comprises: increasing the treatment pressure in response to a label being applied to an inspiratory portion that indicates the inspiratory portion is flow limited; or decreasing the treatment pressure in response in response to a label being applied to an inspiratory portion that indicates the inspiratory portion is not flow limited (paragraph 0093-0094, 0188-0196).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armistead (US 20110203588) in view of Eklund (US 6889691) further in view of Hedner (US 20080257349)
Regarding claim 17, Armistead discloses all of the claimed limitations except The method of claim 13, further comprising: displaying, with an output device, the metric. Hedner teaches displaying, with an output device, the metric (paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Armistead’s device which shows a display in Fig 4 by Hedner’s display which teaches using the display to output the measured data, for the purpose of providing the ventilator characteristics and function to allow the user to give immediate feedback and control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASMEEN S WARSI whose telephone number is (571)272-9942. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am to 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/YASMEEN S WARSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791