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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 December 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-7,9-20,22,26-27,30,32 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving a first message intended for presentation by a computing device;
presenting the first message on the computing device using a first presentation scheme in response to receiving the first message;
receiving, via one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device including a user-facing camera, and an inertia measurement unit (IMU), interaction data associated with a user interacting with the computing device, the interaction data comprising biometric data of the user that includes eye blink rate data, inertia data of the computing device, and software-usage data of the computing device that includes button press speed or accuracy data;
determining an alertness inference based on the interaction data, wherein the alertness inference is indicative of a degree of alertness of the user, the determining based on an application of (i) one or more weighted formulae or (ii) a trained algorithm to the eve blink rate data, the inertia data, and the button press speed or accuracy data to generate an alertness score;
receiving a second message intended for presentation by the computing device; and
altering presentation of the second message on the computing device based on the determined alertness inference, wherein altering the presentation of the second message comprises modifying a notification rule of the computing device to withhold presentation of the second message or to present the second message using a second presentation scheme that omits an audible alert; and
responsive to withholding presentation of the second message, receiving subsequent interaction data and determining a subsequent alertness inference using the subsequent interaction data wherein the subsequent alertness inference is indicative of a subsequent degree of alertness of the user that is different than the degree of alertness of the user, and one or more of (i) presenting the second message in response to the subsequent alertness inference and (ii) automatically attempting re-delivery after a set duration or at a set time.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the steps of determining a user’s alertness and determining how to alter presentation of data thereto are typically performed by human beings, i.e. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer recited with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the highlighted portions may be practically performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 2, 5-6, 9-15, 17-20, 22, 26-27 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
receiving a first message intended for presentation by a computing device;
presenting the first message on the computing device using a first presentation scheme in response to receiving the first message;
receiving, via one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device including a user-facing camera, and an inertia measurement unit (IMU), interaction data associated with a user interacting with the computing device, the interaction data comprising biometric data of the user that includes eye blink rate data, inertia data of the computing device, and software-usage data of the computing device that includes button press speed or accuracy data;
receiving a second message intended for presentation by the computing device; and
responsive to withholding presentation of the second message, receiving subsequent interaction data, and one or more of (i) presenting the second message in response to the subsequent alertness inference and (ii) automatically attempting re-delivery after a set duration or at a set time.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
Regarding the features of presenting messages (including re-delivery), these limitations amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding the step of receiving data, using a camera and IMU to collect blink data, inertial data, and button press speed/accuracy, these limitations merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 3 reciting a computing device collecting data, claim 19 reciting an app on the computing device, additional limitation(s) which amount(s) to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; claim(s) 2 reciting an audible alert, claims 7, 30 reciting a camera, RF sensor, claim 32 reciting a respiratory therapy device, additional limitation(s) which add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the step of receiving data, this limitation amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Regarding the camera, Rhoads (20040022444) discloses that a digital camera being used to collect video data is WURC in the pertinent arts (paragraph 0781).
Regarding the IMU to collect inertial data, Aogi (20040239341) discloses that an IMU measuring accelerometer data is WURC in the pertinent arts (paragraph 0006).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim(s) reciting an audible alert, Official Notice is taken that a smartphone playing a warning tone is WURC in the pertinent arts; claims 7, 30 reciting a camera (see above with respect to Rhoads), RF sensor, Telder (5781019); claim 32 reciting a respiratory therapy device, Tanaka (2590606, previously mailed on 23 October 2025) discloses monitoring the respiratory rates between left and right lungs and treating accordingly (see at least Abstract)).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 35 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-3,5-7,9-20,22,26-27,30,32 and 35 distinguish(es) over the prior art for the following reasons.
The following is a statement of reasons for the subject matter free of prior art:
Claim 1: the primary reason for the indication of subject matter free of prior art is the inclusion of the following limitations in the combination as recited in the abstract concept and not found in the closest available prior art of record:
receiving, via one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device including a user-facing camera, and an inertia measurement unit (IMU), interaction data associated with a user interacting with the computing device, the interaction data comprising biometric data of the user that includes eye blink rate data, inertia data of the computing device, and software-usage data of the computing device that includes button press speed or accuracy data;
determining an alertness inference based on the interaction data, wherein the alertness inference is indicative of a degree of alertness of the user, the determining based on an application of (i) one or more weighted formulae or (ii) a trained algorithm to the eve blink rate data, the inertia data, and the button press speed or accuracy data to generate an alertness score;
receiving a second message intended for presentation by the computing device; and
altering presentation of the second message on the computing device based on the determined alertness inference, wherein altering the presentation of the second message comprises modifying a notification rule of the computing device to withhold presentation of the second message or to present the second message using a second presentation scheme that omits an audible alert; and
responsive to withholding presentation of the second message, receiving subsequent interaction data and determining a subsequent alertness inference using the subsequent interaction data wherein the subsequent alertness inference is indicative of a subsequent degree of alertness of the user that is different than the degree of alertness of the user, and one or more of (i) presenting the second message in response to the subsequent alertness inference and (ii) automatically attempting re-delivery after a set duration or at a set time.
The closest available prior art of record are as follows:
Jung (20090292702) discloses gaze tracking to determine a user’s mental state (paragraph 0026-0027, 0031), but does not fairly disclose or suggest using an IMU with an integrated camera to measure the user’s eye blink, inertia, button press speed and accuracy.
Rayman (20170357419) discloses alter a sleep alarm (paragraph 0077, 0143-0148), but does not fairly disclose or suggest the recited algorithm to modify or otherwise suppress the presentation of messages based on the user’s alertness as determined from obtained data.
Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claim 1 would be found to be subject matter free of prior art.
Claim(s) 2-3,5-7,9-20,22,26-27,30,32: this/these claim(s) would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to parent claim 1 above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 35: this/these claim(s) would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art for substantially similar rationale as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on 22 December 2025, Applicant makes numerous arguments. Examiner will address these arguments in the order presented.
On page 10 Applicant argues that the camera and IMU are not Mental Processes.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the section above, wherein the camera and IMU have been treated as additional elements, and not part of the abstract idea.
On page 10 Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mathematical formula.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, and Examiner agrees. The claim does not explicitly recite any mathematical formula or equation; however, Examiner maintains that the claims are still directed towards an abstract idea, as discussed in the section above and incorporated herein.
On page 10 Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive because Applicant does not state why the argued limitations are not directed towards enumerated sub-categories of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as discussed in the section above and incorporated herein; Applicant merely provides a conclusory statement to such.
On page 11 Applicant argues that the claims provide automation rules regarding to alarm and message presentation.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, the algorithm to process such automation schemes are part of the abstract idea (see above). The computer is merely invoked as a tool to display data and alerts according to these abstract calculations.
The argument is not found persuasive.
On page 12 Applicant further argues the claims provide a computer control loop.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, Examiner submits that deciding when to communicate with a person is part of the abstract idea. The “scheduling, inter alia, is therefore part of the abstract idea, and cannot provide technical improvement.
At best, Applicant has an improvement in the abstract.
The argument is not found persuasive.
On page 12 Applicant argues that the additional elements provide significantly more.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, from the section above, the additional elements merely operate in their intended function states while providing nothing more than their expected functionalities to implement the abstract idea.
Based on the evidence presented above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on page 14-15 with respect to the rejection of the claims under Section 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of all claims under Section 103(a) has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shouldice et al. (WO2019122413) discloses a motion sensing system that tracks usage on a computing device, gathers biometric data with sensors such as accelerometers, receives position and eye tracking, respiratory therapy device, score, audible alarms, and more.
Shouldice et al. (WO2019122412) discloses a system for health and medical sensing that teaches computing device, accelerometers, position and eye tracking, respiratory therapy device, score, audible alarms, and more.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. 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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
