DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The current application claims benefit of provisional application 63/018,323, filed on April 30th 2020. Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s claim for priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Nov 14th, 2022 is being entered and considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-20, 22, 26-27, 30, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture. However, it will be shown in the following steps, that claims 1-20, 22, 26, 27, 30, 32, and 35 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A Prong One
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;
generating, via one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device, interaction data associated with a user interacting with the computing device, the interaction data comprising one or more of biometric data of the individual, inertia data of the computing device, and software-usage data of the computing device
determining an alertness inference based on the interaction data, wherein the alertness inference is indicative of a degree of alertness of the user;
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 presenting the second message using a second presentation scheme.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes and/or organizing human activity because each bolded component can practically be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer terms like “computing device” and “sensors” nothing in the claims precludes the bold-font portions from practically being performed in the mind or by a human. For example, but for the “computing device” language, “receiving a first message intended for presentation” in the context of this claim encompasses a user listening to a person present pertinent information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” or “Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The steps:
A method comprising: receiving a first message intended for presentation
determining an alertness inference based on the interaction data, wherein the alertness inference is indicative of a degree of alertness of the user;
receiving a second message intended for presentation
and altering presentation of the second message
as drafted, could lay out a person waiting to engage in conversation with another individual upon a more alert appearance. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these steps include multiple abstract ideas that will be identified as a single abstract idea moving forward.
Independent claims 35 cover similar steps of receiving messages intended for presentation, determining an alertness level based on interaction data, and presenting this information to a user. These claims fall under the same category of an abstract idea and follows the same rationale as claim 1.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 9, reciting particular aspects of how “the interaction data further comprises inertia data of the computing device or software-usage data of the computing device, and wherein determining an alertness inference based on the interaction data comprises determining an alertness inference based on one of the biometric data, the inertia data, and the software-usage data; and confirming the alertness inference using another of the biometric data, the inertia data, and the software-usage data.” may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
Dependent claims 2-3, 7, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 30, and 32 add additional elements to their parent claims which will be further inspected in the following steps for a practical application to their abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception of “Mental Processes” or “Organizing Human Activity” is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 and 35’s methods recite additional elements such as “a computing device” and “sensors”. The computing devices and sensors will be treated as generic computer components. In particular, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of “computing device” amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification “Examples of suitable computing devices include smartphones, tablets, computers, and the like, although any suitable computing device can be used.” [0035], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (recitation of “presenting the first message on the computing device using a first presentation scheme in response to receiving the first message”, “generating, via one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device, interaction data associated with a user interacting with the computing device, the interaction data comprising one or more of biometric data of the individual, inertia data of the computing device, and software-usage data of the computing device” and “wherein altering the presentation of the second message comprises presenting the second message using a second presentation scheme.” amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For instance, dependent claims 7, 30, and 32, respectively, add additional elements of camera alongside a radiofrequency sensor, an inertia measurement unit, and a respiratory device to their parent claims. Additionally:
claim 30 “the computing device is a mobile device comprising an inertia measurement unit for obtaining inertia data and a user-facing camera for obtaining biometric data.” amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea,
claim 14 “receiving supplemental information associated with the user interacting with the computing device, wherein the supplemental information comprises at least one of a time of day, a geolocation, a time zone, power data from the computing device, or an ambient light level; wherein determining the alertness inference is further based on the supplemental information” and claim 15 “receiving interaction data comprises receiving first message interaction data associated with the user interaction with the presentation of the first message, the method further comprising determining an importance score associated with the first message based on the first message interaction data, wherein receiving the second message comprises assigning a presumed importance score to the second message based on the importance score associated with the first message, and wherein altering presentation of the second message is further based on the presumed importance score of the second message” and claim 16 “receiving subsequent interaction data associated with the user subsequently interacting with the computing device” and claim 19 “the action is associated with a particular app on the computing device, and wherein the importance score associated with the action is an importance score associated with the app” and claim 22 “determining that the user is travelling based on the received interaction data, calendar data, or location data; and presenting a travel alert based on the alertness inference.” and claim 26 “determining that the user is travelling based on the received interaction data, calendar data, or location data, wherein determining that the user is travelling comprises identifying a presumed destination” and claim 26 “determining that the user is asleep based on the alertness inference; and automatically setting an alarm after determining that the user is asleep, wherein the alarm is set to wake the user prior to arrival at the presumed destination.”, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, claim 13 “analyzing the second message to determine that the second message is non-essential, wherein altering presentation of the second message is based on the determined alertness inference and the determination that the second message is non-essential.” and claim 16 “presenting the second message according to the first presentation scheme or a third presentation scheme in response to the subsequent alertness inference” and claim 17 “the second message comprises advertising content, the method further comprising: determining a receptiveness score based on the alertness inference and the interaction data, wherein the receptiveness score is indicative of receptiveness to advertising content, wherein alerting presentation of the second message comprises withholding presentation of the second message when the receptiveness score is below a threshold score” and claim 17 “determining a subsequent receptiveness score based on the subsequent alertness inference and the subsequent interaction data, wherein presenting the second message according to the first presentation scheme in response to the subsequent alertness inference occurs when the subsequent receptiveness score is at or above the threshold score.” and claim 20 “the second message comprises advertising content, the method further comprising selecting a route of presentation based on the alertness inference and the received interaction data, wherein altering presentation of the second message comprises presenting the second message using the second presentation scheme, and wherein the second presentation scheme uses the selected route of presentation.” and claim 27 “determining an importance score associated with an action being taken by the user on the computing device at the time the second message is received based on the received interaction data and the determined alertness inference; and determining an importance score associated with the second message, wherein altering presentation of the second message is further based on comparing the importance score of the second message with the importance score of the action being taken by the user.” amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, claim 2 “presenting the first message using the first presentation scheme comprises presenting the first message with an audible alert, and wherein presenting the second message using the second presentation scheme comprises presenting the second message without an audible alert.” and claim 11 “presenting the first message comprises applying a notification rule of the computing device to the first message when received, and wherein altering presentation of the second message comprises modifying the notification rule of the computing device.” and claim 16 “determining a subsequent alertness inference based on 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”, amounts to necessary data outputting, see MPEP 2106.05(g)), recitation of claim 32’s “supplying air to the user by a respiratory therapy device, the respiratory therapy device being communicatively coupled to the computing device, wherein the interaction data is associated with the user interacting with i) a respiratory therapy device companion app on the computing device; ii) an interactive display of the respiratory therapy device; or iii) a combination of i and ii.” and claim 3 “the interaction data is collected by the computing device.” amounts to insignificant application, and recitation of “supplying air to the user by a respiratory therapy device, the respiratory therapy device being communicatively coupled to the computing device, wherein the interaction data is associated with the user interacting with i) a respiratory therapy device companion app on the computing device; ii) an interactive display of the respiratory therapy device; or iii) a combination of i and ii.” generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as insomnia, se specification “insomnia can be managed or treated using a variety of techniques or providing recommendations to the patient.” Where the method provides recommendations for the user to take action, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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.
The remaining dependent claims 5-6, 9-10, 12, and 18 do not recite additional elements or activity but further narrow or define the abstract idea embodied in the claims and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. To elaborate:
“presenting the first message on the computing device using a first presentation scheme in response to receiving the first message” , is equivalently, Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)
generating, via one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device, interaction data associated with a user interacting with the computing device, the interaction data comprising one or more of biometric data of the individual, inertia data of the computing device, and software-usage data of the computing device is equivalently, is equivalently, Determining an estimated outcome, OIP Techs., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v)
altering the presentation of the second message comprises presenting the second message using a second presentation scheme., is equivalently, Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims.
As previously noted, the claim recites an additional element of a camera. Rhoads demonstrates “[0781] The design of digital cameras is well understood to those skilled in the art, so is not belabored here” that cameras were conventional long before the priority data of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claim recites an additional element of a respiratory device. McClean demonstrates “[003] There are available various conventional respiratory devices” that respiratory devices were conventional long before the priority data of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claim recites an additional element of an inertia measurement unit. Aoyagi demonstrates in [0006] “conventional accelerometer devices are effective” that inertia measurement units like accelerometers were conventional long before the priority data of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claim recites an additional element of a radiofrequency sensor. Telder describes radio frequency sensors in paragraph [008] “conventional radio frequency type of sensors, such as used in capacitance or admittance devices” as being conventional long before the priority data of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, does not amount to significantly more.
To elaborate:
claim 2 “presenting the first message using the first presentation scheme comprises presenting the first message with an audible alert, and wherein presenting the second message using the second presentation scheme comprises presenting the second message without an audible alert.” , is equivalently, Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)
claim 3 “the interaction data is collected by the computing device.” , is equivalently, receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
claim 11 “presenting the first message comprises applying a notification rule of the computing device to the first message when received, and wherein altering presentation of the second message comprises modifying the notification rule of the computing device.” , is equivalently, Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)
claim 13 “analyzing the second message to determine that the second message is non-essential, wherein altering presentation of the second message is based on the determined alertness inference and the determination that the second message is non-essential.” , is equivalently, Determining an estimated outcome, OIP Techs., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v)
claim 14 “receiving supplemental information associated with the user interacting with the computing device, wherein the supplemental information comprises at least one of a time of day, a geolocation, a time zone, power data from the computing device, or an ambient light level; wherein determining the alertness inference is further based on the supplemental information” , is equivalently, receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
claim 15 “receiving interaction data comprises receiving first message interaction data associated with the user interaction with the presentation of the first message, the method further comprising determining an importance score associated with the first message based on the first message interaction data, wherein receiving the second message comprises assigning a presumed importance score to the second message based on the importance score associated with the first message, and wherein altering presentation of the second message is further based on the presumed importance score of the second message” , is equivalently, Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)
claim 16 “receiving subsequent interaction data associated with the user subsequently interacting with the computing device” , is equivalently, receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
claim 16 “determining a subsequent alertness inference based on 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”, is equivalently, Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)
claim 16 “presenting the second message according to the first presentation scheme or a third presentation scheme in response to the subsequent alertness inference” , is equivalently, Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)
claim 17 “the second message comprises advertising content, the method further comprising: determining a receptiveness score based on the alertness inference and the interaction data, wherein the receptiveness score is indicative of receptiveness to advertising content, wherein alerting presentation of the second message comprises withholding presentation of the second message when the receptiveness score is below a threshold score” , is equivalently, Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)
claim 17 “determining a subsequent receptiveness score based on the subsequent alertness inference and the subsequent interaction data, wherein presenting the second message according to the first presentation scheme in response to the subsequent alertness inference occurs when the subsequent receptiveness score is at or above the threshold score.” , is equivalently, Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)
claim 19 “the action is associated with a particular app on the computing device, and wherein the importance score associated with the action is an importance score associated with the app” , is equivalently, Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)
claim 20 “the second message comprises advertising content, the method further comprising selecting a route of presentation based on the alertness inference and the received interaction data, wherein altering presentation of the second message comprises presenting the second message using the second presentation scheme, and wherein the second presentation scheme uses the selected route of presentation.” , is equivalently, Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)
claim 22 “determining that the user is travelling based on the received interaction data, calendar data, or location data; and presenting a travel alert based on the alertness inference.” , is equivalently, receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
claim 26 “determining that the user is travelling based on the received interaction data, calendar data, or location data, wherein determining that the user is travelling comprises identifying a presumed destination” , is equivalently, receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
claim 26 “determining that the user is asleep based on the alertness inference; and automatically setting an alarm after determining that the user is asleep, wherein the alarm is set to wake the user prior to arrival at the presumed destination.” , is equivalently, Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)
claim 27 “determining an importance score associated with an action being taken by the user on the computing device at the time the second message is received based on the received interaction data and the determined alertness inference; and determining an importance score associated with the second message, wherein altering presentation of the second message is further based on comparing the importance score of the second message with the importance score of the action being taken by the user.” , is equivalently, Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)
claim 32’s “supplying air to the user by a respiratory therapy device, the respiratory therapy device being communicatively coupled to the computing device,” is well understood through teachings by Tanaka et al. (JP-2590606) see (“The present invention relates to an improvement of a left-right separate lung (left-right independent) ventilator used for treatment of respiratory failure and the like. In left and right lung ventilation type ventilation, when the left and right lung conditions (especially elasticity and airway resistance) are different due to pathological causes, the ventilation pressure and ventilation volume suitable for each lung condition This type of conventional ventilator”)
claim 32’s “wherein the interaction data is associated with the user interacting with i) a respiratory therapy device companion app on the computing device; ii) an interactive display of the respiratory therapy device; or iii) a combination of i and ii.” , is equivalently, receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US20090292702) in view of Raymann et al. (US20170357419)
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches.
A method comprising: receiving a first message intended for presentation by a computing device; ([0043] “The receiving module 110 of the receiving network device 102 may initially receive the electronic message 150 transmitted by the authoring network device 104 as well as data indicative of an inferred mental state (e.g., raw data provided by sensors 176/178 or data that indicates or directly identifies the inferred mental state” where the network device [i.e., computing device] receives the electronic message [i.e., a first message] that is intended for presentation)
presenting the first message on the computing device using a first presentation scheme in response to receiving the first message; ([0028] “the authoring network device 104 may further include a presentation module 166… the presentation module 166 may be for presenting the data indicative of the inferred mental state of the authoring user 130” where network device [i.e., computing device] uses the presentation module [i.e., presenting the first message] to share data indicative of an inferred mental state [i.e., the first message using a first presentation scheme])
generating, via one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device, interaction data associated with a user interacting with the computing device, the interaction data comprising one or more of biometric data of the individual, inertia data of the computing device, and software-usage data of the computing device ([0031] “The authoring network device 104 may additionally include a user interface 170, an email, instant message (IM), audio, and/or video application[s] 172, a network communication interface 174, and/or one or more integrated sensors 176. In some implementations, the user interface 170 may, in fact, be one or more interfaces such as a user display, a touch screen, a keypad, a speaker system, and so forth for interacting with the authoring user 130.” Where the integrated sensors [i.e., one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device] are used to track interactions [comprising generating interaction data] from the authorizing user via the network device; See also [0057] where capturing a skin characteristic associated with a user comprises generating biometric data of an individual; see also [0086] “Those having skill in the art will recognize that a typical data processing system generally includes … one or more interaction devices, such as a touch pad or screen, and/or control systems including feedback loops and control motors (e.g., feedback for sensing position and/or velocity” where feedback for sensing position/ velocity comprises generating inertia data)
determining an alertness inference based on the interaction data, wherein the alertness inference is indicative of a degree of alertness of the user; ([0033] “Data obtained from observations made with one or more such sensors 176/178 may be used by, for example, the mental state determination module 162 in order to determine an inferred mental state of the authoring user 130 including, for example… alertness… degree of attention” where an inferred mental state is alertness level and degrees of attention indicates the degree of alertness)
receiving a second message intended for presentation by the computing device; ([0037] “The electronic message 150 to be sent to and received by the receiving network device 102 may be in a form of an email message, an IM message, an audio message, a video message, or another type of electronic message that may be sent by the authoring user 130 via the authoring network device 104” and [0055] “For example, in some embodiments, the determination operation 402 may include another or second determination operation 404… the determination operation 404 may include determining by the determination module 160 of the authoring network device 104 a result of an observation”; where the authoring device comprises a system which sends a plurality of messages based on the second determination operation collecting information that is presented on a user device in a second message)
Regarding claim 1, Jung does not explicitly teach, as taught by Raymann:
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 presenting the second message using a second presentation scheme. ([0105] “At 1210, the process 1200 receives configuration information. The configuration information may be information that configures a sleep alarm… Examples of configuration information may include a wake time 1212, a sleep duration 1214, and a sleep alert offset time 1216… the sleep alarm may be presented.” where the sleep alarm [i.e., a second message] is offset [i.e., altered] using configuration information [i.e., determined alertness inference] to present a sleep alarm [i.e., a second message presentation scheme])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung with the teachings of Raymann, with a reasonable chance of success, by altering notifications for a device based on the interaction data of a user. This would have provided a user with a better experience by reducing the number of untimely notifications. Raymann is adaptable to Jung as both inventions utilize computing device comprising biosensors to collect interaction data of a user for optimizing user performance. Jung would have found Raymann’s teaching while looking for cost effective ways to improve a user’s sleep after Raymann teaches [0003] “specialized electronic devices and applications have been developed that can track aspects of one's sleep habits. Such devices, however, can be cost prohibitive to most people, or otherwise difficult to operate”.
Regarding claim 2, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Raymann also teaches:
wherein presenting the first message using the first presentation scheme comprises presenting the first message with an audible alert, and wherein presenting the second message using the second presentation scheme comprises presenting the second message without an audible alert. ([0105] “configuration information may identify the days for the sleep alarm to go off, an expected bedtime, aspects of the alerts (e.g., music or sounds, colors, etc.), snooze information, volume adjustment… the volume adjustment may function to control the audible volume of alerts presented at a user device independent of a system volume on the user device.” Where the sleep alarm [i.e., a presentation scheme] for each day comprises adjustable volume to control the volume of alerts [i.e., present the message with/without an audible alert])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung with the teachings of Raymann, with a reasonable chance of success, by altering notifications for a device based on the interaction data of a user. This would have provided a user with a better experience by reducing the number of untimely notifications. Raymann is adaptable to Jung as both inventions utilize computing device comprising biosensors to collect interaction data of a user for optimizing user performance. Jung would have found Raymann’s teaching while looking for cost effective ways to improve a user’s sleep after Raymann teaches [0003] “specialized electronic devices and applications have been developed that can track aspects of one's sleep habits. Such devices, however, can be cost prohibitive to most people, or otherwise difficult to operate”.
Regarding claim 3, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Jung also teaches
wherein the interaction data is collected by the computing device. ([0035] “In addition to these components, the receiving network device 102 may also include a receiving module 110 for receiving data indicative of one or more inferred mental states of the authoring user 130. The received data may be in at least one of two different forms. In the first form, the received data is sensor provided data of one or more physical characteristics of the authoring user 130 that has been collected from one or more sensors 176/178” where the receiving data indicative of one or more mental states [i.e., interaction data] occurs via the network device [i.e., computing device])
Regarding claim 4, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Raymann also teaches:
wherein the interaction data comprises one or more of biometric data of the individual, ([0148] “FIG. 18 depicts an example electronic device 1800 having one or more biometric sensors” which collect biometric data of an individual for interaction data) inertia data of the computing device, ([0143] “As non-limiting examples, a motion may be used to silence the device or acknowledge an alert generated by the device. Sample motion sensors include accelerometers,” where accelerometers record inertia data as interaction data) and software-usage data of the computing device. ([0077] “interaction data from the tablet device 1004 may identify the user 1002(1)… a time when the interactions were logged, the type of interaction” is software usage data of the computing device)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung with the teachings of Raymann, with a reasonable chance of success, by altering notifications for a device based on the interaction data of a user. This would have provided a user with a better experience by reducing the number of untimely notifications. Raymann is adaptable to Jung as both inventions utilize computing device comprising biosensors to collect interaction data of a user for optimizing user performance. Jung would have found Raymann’s teaching while looking for cost effective ways to improve a user’s sleep after Raymann teaches [0003] “specialized electronic devices and applications have been developed that can track aspects of one's sleep habits. Such devices, however, can be cost prohibitive to most people, or otherwise difficult to operate”.
Regarding claim 5, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Jung also teaches:
wherein the interaction data comprises biometric data of the individual, and wherein the biometric data comprises one or more of eye focus data, blink rate data, and head sway data. ([0046] “Such raw data may include, for example, galvanic skin response data provided by a galvanic skin sensor and a gaze tracking (e.g., eye movement) data obtained from a gaze tracking device. The raw data may then be used by the mental state determination module 140 in order to infer one or more mental states for the receiving user 120.” Where raw data [i.e., interaction data] comprises gaze tracking [i.e., eye focus] data of an individual)
Regarding claim 6, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Jung also teaches:
wherein the interaction data comprises biometric data of the individual, wherein the biometric data comprises biomotion data, and wherein the biomotion data comprises torso movement, limb movement, respiration, head movement, eye movement, hand movement, finger movement, or cardiac movement. ([0046] “Such raw data may include, for example, galvanic skin response data provided by a galvanic skin sensor and a gaze tracking (e.g., eye movement) data obtained from a gaze tracking device. The raw data may then be used by the mental state determination module 140 in order to infer one or more mental states for the receiving user 120.” Where raw data [i.e., interaction data] comprises eye movement data of an individual)
Regarding claim 7, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Jung also teaches:
wherein the biometric data is collected using (a) a user-facing camera of the computing device or (b) a radiofrequency sensor. ([figure 1] “(176) integrated sensors include an Integrated facial expression sensor device” [i.e., a user facing camera]); see also [0026] (“The authoring network device 104 may be any type of computing and/or communication device such as … a cellular telephone,”)
Regarding claim 9, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Raymann also teaches:
wherein the interaction data further comprises inertia data of the computing device or software-usage data of the computing device, ([0143] “As non-limiting examples, a motion may be used to silence the device or acknowledge an alert generated by the device. Sample motion sensors include accelerometers,” where accelerometers record inertia data as interaction data) and wherein determining an alertness inference based on the interaction data comprises determining an alertness inference based on one of the biometric data, the inertia data, and the software-usage data; ([0075] “the environment 1000 may be useful for collecting historical sleep data in order to populate the sleep graph 124. This may include determining and/or estimating when a user falls asleep (e.g., a beginning of a sleep interval)” where an historical data [i.e., interaction data] determines whether a user is falling asleep [i.e., an alertness inference]; see also “accelerometer” above)
and confirming the alertness inference using another of the biometric data, the inertia data, and the software-usage data. ([0076] “The devices of the environment 1000 may provide data to the user device 104 and/or the service provider that can be used to determine or estimate when the users 1002 fall asleep, instances when the users 1002 are awake during the night, and when the users 1002 wake up in the morning. Such data can include interaction data” where software usage data determines whether a user is falling asleep [i.e., an alertness inference]; see also “accelerometer” above)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung with the teachings of Raymann, with a reasonable chance of success, by altering notifications for a device based on the interaction data of a user. This would have provided a user with a better experience by reducing the number of untimely notifications. Raymann is adaptable to Jung as both inventions utilize computing device comprising biosensors to collect interaction data of a user for optimizing user performance. Jung would have found Raymann’s teaching while looking for cost effective ways to improve a user’s sleep after Raymann teaches [0003] “specialized electronic devices and applications have been developed that can track aspects of one's sleep habits. Such devices, however, can be cost prohibitive to most people, or otherwise difficult to operate”.
Regarding claim 11, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Raymann also teaches:
wherein presenting the first message comprises applying a notification rule of the computing device to the first message when received, ([0031] “The sleep alarm described herein may improve the functioning of a user device on which the sleep alarm operates. For example, the sleep alarm may enable additional alarm options as compared to other alarm applications. These sleep alarm options may include scheduling and presenting a sleep alert (e.g., a sleep notification) prior to a suggested bedtime,” where alarm options [i.e., applying a notification rule] alter a sleep alert’s scheduling [i.e., the first message]) and wherein altering presentation of the second message comprises modifying the notification rule of the computing device. ([0036] “At 130, the process 102 may include scheduling one or more alerts. This can include scheduling a sleep alert to go off at a first future time prior to a bedtime and scheduling a wakeup alert to go off at a second future time at a wake time. The first future time may be computed as an offset from a suggested bedtime and/or may be based at least in part on the sleep configuration information received at 126. The second future time may also be based at least in part on the sleep configuration information received” where offsetting from a suggested bedtime [i.e., modifying a notification rule of the computing device] schedules one or more alerts to a different time [i.e., altering presentation of the second message])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung with the teachings of Raymann, with a reasonable chance of success, by altering notifications for a device based on the interaction data of a user. This would have provided a user with a better experience by reducing the number of untimely notifications. Raymann is adaptable to Jung as both inventions utilize computing device comprising biosensors to collect interaction data of a user for optimizing user performance. Jung would have found Raymann’s teaching while looking for cost effective ways to improve a user’s sleep after Raymann teaches [0003] “specialized electronic devices and applications have been developed that can track aspects of one's sleep habits. Such devices, however, can be cost prohibitive to most people, or otherwise difficult to operate”.
Regarding claim 12, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 11. Raymann also teaches:
wherein modifying the notification rule occurs prior to receiving the second message. ([0031] “The alarm application may also use actual sleep data associated with a user to customize the scheduling of these alerts.” Where customizing the schedule of alarms using sleep data is modifying a notification rule prior to the message)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung with the teachings of Raymann, with a reasonable chance of success, by altering notifications for a device based on the interaction data of a user. This would have provided a user with a better experience by reducing the number of untimely notifications. Raymann is adaptable to Jung as both inventions utilize computing device comprising biosensors to collect interaction data of a user for optimizing user performance. Jung would have found Raymann’s teaching while looking for cost effective ways to improve a user’s sleep after Raymann teaches [0003] “specialized electronic devices and applications have been developed that can track aspects of one's sleep habits. Such devices, however, can be cost prohibitive to most people, or otherwise difficult to operate”.
Claims 10, 13-20, 22, 26, 27, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US20090292702) in view of Raymann et al. (US20170357419) and further in view of Lidzba et al. (US20210295375).
Regarding claim 10, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Jung-Raymann as a combination does not explicitly teach, as taught by Lidzba:
wherein the interaction data comprises software-usage data, ([0016] “the subject disclosure include storing information about location and activities of an individual based on a usage of client devices by the individual and predicting a relative ability to interact with content for the individual” is software usage data) and wherein determining the alertness inference comprises generating an alertness score of the user based on at least one of a speed of interaction of the user and an accuracy of interaction of the user. ([0044] “Such user data may be interpreted by the attentiveness predictor 202 to indicate a relatively high attentiveness level for the individual 212 at the current time. To the attentiveness predictor 202, this may mean that the individual's ability to engage with content at the current time is relatively high” where the attentiveness predictor [i.e., an alertness score] comprises recognizing a high attentiveness level at the current time [i.e., based on a speed of interaction])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 13, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Lidzba also teaches:
further comprising analyzing the second message to determine that the second message is non-essential, wherein altering presentation of the second message is based on the determined alertness inference and the determination that the second message is non-essential. ([0066] “If the relative attentiveness score does not exceed the predetermined engagement threshold, the attentiveness predictor 202 may suppress communications to the individual 212 such as messages from the messaging server” where the engagement threshold [i.e., the relativeness score] suppresses the message [i.e., determines the message as non-essential”)
Regarding claim 14, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Lidzba also teaches:
further comprising receiving supplemental information associated with the user interacting with the computing device, wherein the supplemental information comprises at least one of a time of day, a geolocation, a time zone, power data from the computing device, or an ambient light level; ([0016] “One or more aspects of the subject disclosure include storing information about location and activities of an individual based on a usage of client devices by the individual and predicting a relative ability to interact with content for the individual.” Is receiving location data as user interaction data)
wherein determining the alertness inference is further based on the supplemental information. ([0016] “The relative ability to interact with content corresponds to an ability of the individual to receive and interact with information to be presented to the individual through the one or more client devices” where the ability to interact with content [i.e., the alertness inference] is based on content through a client device [i.e., supplemental information])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 15, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Lidzba also teaches:
wherein receiving interaction data comprises receiving first message interaction data associated with the user interaction with the presentation of the first message, the method further comprising determining an importance score associated with the first message based on the first message interaction data, wherein receiving the second message comprises assigning a presumed importance score to the second message based on the importance score associated with the first message, and wherein altering presentation of the second message is further based on the presumed importance score of the second message. ([0066] “If the relative attentiveness score does not exceed the predetermined engagement threshold, the attentiveness predictor 202 may suppress communications to the individual 212 such as messages from the messaging server” where the attentiveness predictor [comprising the importance score] suppresses [i.e., alters the presentation] the message based on the attentiveness score [which comprises the presumed importance]; see optionally ([0061] “may be used to predict a relatively high attentiveness level for the individual 212 as well as a predicted duration of the attentiveness level of 45 minutes. This information may be used to queue up a sequence of ads for delivery with the expectation that the individual will have a relatively high ability to interact with the advertisements.” Where prediction of a duration of attention of a topic comprises an importance score altering the presentation of subsequent messages)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 16, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Lidzba also teaches:
further comprising: receiving subsequent interaction data associated with the user subsequently interacting with the computing device; ([0031] “The relative ability to interact with content may be referred to as a relative attentiveness level. The relative ability to interact with content includes ability to see or hear or otherwise acknowledge a received information item or content item presented to the individual by one or more client devices 220” where client devices share [i.e., receive] acknowledged interaction information)
determining a subsequent alertness inference based on 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; ([0031] “The relative ability to interact with content is also a function of the current activity and location of the individual. It may also be a function of past activity and locations of the individual.” Where the relative ability to interact with content [i.e., the alertness inference] is a function of past activity and location [i.e., subsequently based on the previous degree of a user])
presenting the second message according to the first presentation scheme or a third presentation scheme in response to the subsequent alertness inference. ([0043] “user data may be interpreted by the attentiveness predictor 202 to indicate a relatively low likely attentiveness level for the individual 212, meaning that the individual's ability to engage with content of any sort at the current time is relatively low. Any content item sent to the individual now will likely be ignored by the individual 212 until a later time” where the content item is sent to the individual after regarding the attentiveness level [i.e., the alert inference)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 17, Jung-Raymann-Lidzba as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 16. Lidzba also teaches:
wherein the second message comprises advertising content, the method further comprising: ([0001] The subject disclosure relates to a prediction of an ability to interact with content by a user or predict attentiveness levels of a user for presentation of advertisements.”) determining a receptiveness score based on the alertness inference and the interaction data, wherein the receptiveness score is indicative of receptiveness to advertising content, ([0038] “This data may include types of information that may be used to predict how attentive the party may be at any given time to receiving content including an advertisement that may be presented to the individual. The predicted attentiveness may include the relative ability of the individual 212 to interact with content items including the advertisement.” Where data [i.e., a receptiveness score] includes ) wherein alerting presentation of the second message comprises withholding presentation of the second message when the receptiveness score is below a threshold score; ([0066] “If the relative attentiveness score does not exceed the predetermined engagement threshold, the attentiveness predictor 202 may suppress communications to the individual 212 such as messages from the messaging server 226, information feeds from the information feed server 228 and social media feeds from the social media feed server 230.” )
determining a subsequent receptiveness score based on the subsequent alertness inference and the subsequent interaction data, ([0067] “The attentiveness predictor 202 may determine the relative ability to interact with content for the individual 212 based on current user data received from the client devices 220 or based on historical data received from the client devices 220 or retrieved from the attentiveness database 204, or both” where the current user data [i.e., subsequent interaction data] is used to predict attentiveness [i.e., a receptiveness score]) wherein presenting the second message according to the first presentation scheme in response to the subsequent alertness inference occurs when the subsequent receptiveness score is at or above the threshold score. ([0066] “If the relative attentiveness score exceeds a predetermined engagement threshold, the attentiveness predictor 202 may conclude that one or more of a message, an information feed, or a social media feed may be sent to the individual.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 18, Jung-Raymann-Lidzba as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Lidzba also teaches:
wherein determining a receptiveness score comprises determining an importance score associated with an action being taken by the user on the computing device based on received interaction data, wherein the importance score is indicative of a perceived importance of the action to the user based on the received interaction data. ([0046] “The attentiveness predictor 202 may cooperate with attentiveness database 204 to store and retrieve historical user data for users such as the individual 212 … similarly, the historical data may include past activity data about past activities of the individual and past active application data showing past engagement with applications on one or more devices” where the attentiveness predictor [i.e., a receptiveness score] uses historical data to retrieve past engagement for prediction alongside current user data [i.e., indicative of a perceived importance of the action])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 19, Jung-Raymann-Lidzba as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 18. Lidzba also teaches:
wherein the action is associated with a particular app on the computing device, and wherein the importance score associated with the action is an importance score associated with the app. ([0056] “A selected mode may refer to the nature of the advertisement, such as a low-engagement display ad sent with an email message or a high-engagement video ad sent as part of a web page to a browser or before a movie downloaded or streamed to the smart television.” Where the interaction [i.e., an action] to an advertisement as part of a web page [i.e., an application] is associated with the engagement level [i.e., importance score])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 20, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Lidzba also teaches:
wherein the second message comprises advertising content, the method further comprising ([0001] The subject disclosure relates to a prediction of an ability to interact with content by a user or predict attentiveness levels of a user for presentation of advertisements.”) selecting a route of presentation based on the alertness inference and the received interaction data, wherein altering presentation of the second message comprises presenting the second message using the second presentation scheme, and wherein the second presentation scheme uses the selected route of presentation. ([0056] “The attentiveness predictor 202 will communicate suitable information to the advertisement engine 206. The advertisement engine will request an appropriate advertisement from the advertisement database 208 and deliver the advertisement for presentation to the individual 212. The advertisement engine 206 may select the advertisement based on factors such as location and demographics of the individual” where the advertisement engine chooses an appropriate advertisement [i.e., a route of presentation] based on the attentiveness predictor [i.e., the alertness inference and the received interaction data]; see also [0065] “It should be noted that the apparatus and method illustrated in conjunction with FIG. 2A for predicting an attentiveness level and sending an advertisement to an individual 212 may also be extended to other types of communications to be sent to the individual 212. The embodiment of FIG. 2B enables such extension. These other communications may include messages such as emails or text messages provided by the messaging server 226. These other communications may further include information feeds, such as news alerts, provided by the information feed server 228. These other communications may further include social Media Feeds, such as direct messages or postings provided by social media feed server 230.” Where the message over various mediums comprises a second presentation)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 22, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Lidzba also teaches:
further comprising: determining that the user is travelling based on the received interaction data, calendar data, or location data; ([0062] “attentiveness predictor 202 determines the individual 212 is traveling on a train and is determined via their active application data”)
and presenting a travel alert based on the alertness inference. ([0034] “Similarly, the smart speaker 216 may synchronize with the global application and may respond to spoken inquiries of the individual 212 such as “tell me my appointments tomorrow.” Calendar data may include past, current and future data as well as location information if an appointment is recorded in a calendar with a location for the appointment.” Where responding about appointments [i.e., presenting a travel alert] based on spoken inquiries [i.e., an alertness inference] is based on location data)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information, including geolocation hardware components. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 26, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Lidzba also teaches:
further comprising: determining that the user is travelling based on the received interaction data, calendar data, or location data, wherein determining that the user is travelling comprises identifying a presumed destination; ([Lidzba 0036] “An in-car monitor of the client devices may detect that the individual 212 is driving, including reporting the route taken by the individual 212 and a destination entered into a mapping function of the in-car monitor. Such activity data may reflect commercial or other activity of the individual 212” is identifying a presumed destination based on activity data)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information, including geolocation hardware components. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 26, Raymann also teaches:
determining that the user is asleep based on the alertness inference; ([Raymann 0075] “the environment 1000 may be useful for collecting historical sleep data in order to populate the sleep graph 124. This may include determining and/or estimating when a user falls asleep (e.g., a beginning of a sleep interval)” is based on the alertness inference)
and automatically setting an alarm after determining that the user is asleep, wherein the alarm is set to wake the user prior to arrival at the presumed destination. ([Raymann 0143] “As non-limiting examples, a motion may be used to silence the device or acknowledge an alert generated by the device. Sample motion sensors include accelerometers, gyroscopic sensors, magnetometers, GPS sensors, distance sensors, and so on. Some embodiments may use a GPS sensor” where acknowledging an alert [i.e., an alarm set to wake] is modified based on the distance sensors [i.e., the presumed destination])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung with the teachings of Raymann, with a reasonable chance of success, by altering notifications for a device based on the interaction data of a user. This would have provided a user with a better experience by reducing the number of untimely notifications. Raymann is adaptable to Jung as both inventions utilize computing device comprising biosensors to collect interaction data of a user for optimizing user performance. Jung would have found Raymann’s teaching while looking for cost effective ways to improve a user’s sleep after Raymann teaches [0003] “specialized electronic devices and applications have been developed that can track aspects of one's sleep habits. Such devices, however, can be cost prohibitive to most people, or otherwise difficult to operate”.
Regarding claim 27, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Lidzba also teaches:
further comprising: determining an importance score associated with an action being taken by the user on the computing device ([0055] The attentiveness predictor 202 in various embodiments determines a relative ability to interact with content such as advertisements by the individual 212. As noted, in some embodiments, this may include determining a predicted attentiveness score.” Where an attentiveness score comprises an importance score) at the time the second message is received based on the received interaction data and the determined alertness inference; ([0055] “Based on the predicted attentiveness score, the attentiveness predictor 202 may communicate with the advertisement engine 206 to indicate whether or not to deliver an advertisement to the individual 212 … The advertisement engine 206 selects a suitable advertisement, for example based on demographics of the individual, location of the individual, behavior of the individual and other factors. In this regard, at least some user data for the individual may be shared with the advertisement engine 206.” Where a user’s behavior data [i.e., received interaction data] is used by the alertness predictor [i.e., determines alertness inference])
and determining an importance score associated with the second message, wherein altering presentation of the second message is further based on comparing the importance score of the second message with the importance score of the action being taken by the user. ([0056] “a relatively high predicted attentiveness score may indicate to the attentiveness predictor 202 that a video ad may be delivered to the individual. The attentiveness predictor 202 will communicate suitable information to the advertisement engine 206. A relatively low predicted attentiveness score may indicate to the attentiveness predictor 202 that an email ad may be delivered.” Where the attentive score [i.e., importance score] alters how the message is presented)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information, including geolocation hardware components. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Regarding claim 30, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Jung also teaches:
wherein the computing device is a mobile device comprising an inertia measurement unit for obtaining inertia data ([0143] “As non-limiting examples, a motion may be used to silence the device or acknowledge an alert generated by the device. Sample motion sensors include accelerometers,” where accelerometers record inertia data as interaction data) and a user-facing camera for obtaining biometric data. ([figure 1] “(176) integrated sensors include an Integrated facial expression sensor device [i.e., a user facing camera]); see also [0026] (“The authoring network device 104 may be any type of computing and/or communication device such as … a cellular telephone,”)
Regarding claim 35, Jung teaches:
A method, comprising: receiving a message intended for presentation to a user by a computing device; and ([0043] “The receiving module 110 of the receiving network device 102 may initially receive the electronic message 150 transmitted by the authoring network device 104 as well as data indicative of an inferred mental state (e.g., raw data provided by sensors 176/178 or data that indicates or directly identifies the inferred mental state” where the network device [i.e., computing device] receives the electronic message [i.e., a first message] that is intended for presentation)
Regarding claim 35, Jung does not explicitly teach, as taught by Lidzba:
altering presentation of the message on the computing device based on a determined alertness inference, wherein the alertness inference is indicative of a degree of alertness of the user, ([0056] “the relative value of the predicted attentiveness score may be used to determine the mode by which to deliver the ad.” Where the relative value [i.e., indicative of a degree of alertness of the user] determines the mode [i.e., alters the presentation] by which to deliver the ad [i.e., of the message]) wherein altering the presentation of the message comprises presenting the message using an altered presentation scheme, ([0056] “a relatively high predicted attentiveness score may indicate to the attentiveness predictor 202 that a video ad may be delivered to the individual. The attentiveness predictor 202 will communicate suitable information to the advertisement engine 206. A relatively low predicted attentiveness score may indicate to the attentiveness predictor 202 that an email ad may be delivered.” Where the attentive score [i.e., importance score] alters how the message is presented)
Regarding claim 35, Jung continues to teach:
and wherein the alertness inference is determined based on: receiving a prior message intended for presentation by the computing device; ([0027] The authoring network device 104 may include various components including, for example, an acquisition module 160 for acquiring data indicative of an inferred mental state of the authoring user 130.” Where the network device [i.e., computing device] acquisition module acquires data indicative of an inferred mental state [i.e., receives interaction data associated with a user])
presenting the prior message on the computing device using a presentation scheme in response to receiving the prior message, wherein the altered presentation scheme is different than the presentation scheme; ([0028] “the authoring network device 104 may further include a presentation module 166… the presentation module 166 may be for presenting the data indicative of the inferred mental state of the authoring user 130” where network device [i.e., computing device] uses the presentation module [i.e., presenting the first message] to share data indicative of an inferred mental state [i.e., the first message using a first presentation scheme])
generating, using one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device, interaction data associated with the user interacting with the computing device the interaction data comprising one or more of biometric data of the individual, inertia data of the computing device, and software-usage data of the computing device; and (0031] The authoring network device 104 may additionally include a user interface 170, an email, instant message (IM), audio, and/or video application[s] 172, a network communication interface 174, and/or one or more integrated sensors 176. In some implementations, the user interface 170 may, in fact, be one or more interfaces such as a user display, a touch screen, a keypad, a speaker system, and so forth for interacting with the authoring user 130.” Where the integrated sensors [i.e., one or more sensors interfaced with the computing device] are used to track interactions [comprising generating interaction data] from the authorizing user; See also [0057] where capturing a skin characteristic associated with a user comprises generating biometric data of an individual; see also [0086] “Those having skill in the art will recognize that a typical data processing system generally includes … one or more interaction devices, such as a touch pad or screen, and/or control systems including feedback loops and control motors (e.g., feedback for sensing position and/or velocity” where feedback for sensing position/ velocity comprises generating inertia data)
determining the alertness inference based on the interaction data. ([0033] “Data obtained from observations made with one or more such sensors 176/178 may be used by, for example, the mental state determination module 162 in order to determine an inferred mental state of the authoring user 130 including, for example… alertness… degree of attention” where an inferred mental state is alertness level and degrees of attention indicates the degree of alertness)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung with the teachings of Lidzba, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the attentiveness predictor to individualize notifications for a user. This would have made notifications more accurate to the user’s true alertness, therefore allowing the user to avoid disruptive notifications with customization. Lidzba is adaptable to Jung as both inventions use a generic system of computing devices to process user related information, including geolocation hardware components. Jung would have found Lidzba’s teaching of “not all times and places are convenient for receipt of content by the individual” in the search for improving a user’s experience of notifications for the purpose of improving sleep.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US20090292702) in view of Raymann et al. (US20170357419) and further in view of Armstrong et al. (US20110247620).
Regarding claim 32, Jung-Raymann as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Armstrong also teaches:
further comprising supplying air to the user by a respiratory therapy device, the respiratory therapy device being communicatively coupled to the computing device, wherein the interaction data is associated with the user interacting with i) a respiratory therapy device companion app on the computing device; ii) an interactive display of the respiratory therapy device; or iii) a combination of i and ii. ([0033] “The oxygen delivery device may further include a device interface module configured to interface with one or more additional devices to enable interoperability functionality of the oxygen delivery device with the one or more additional devices, the interoperability functionality includes one or more of, for example … communicating data between the oxygen delivery device and the one or more additional devices”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung-Raymann with the teachings of Armstrong, with a reasonable chance of success, by adding a respiratory therapy device to the network of devices. This would have allowed a user to better keep track of pertinent patient information, such as their oxygen intake, amidst their notification system. Armstrong is adaptable to Jung-Raymann as both inventions interface with a network of devices to communicate user information into a consolidated database. Jung would have found Armstrong’s teaching while searching for better alarm systems amidst changing environment dynamics, as depicted by Armstrong when they share “The user interface may include a power loss alarm, and the rechargeable backup battery may be configured to deliver power to activate the power loss alarm in response to determination that the primary power source cannot deliver power”.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges Applicants arguments and will address them in the order they were presented.
Regarding page 9, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not moot in view of the amended claim language.
Regarding page 10, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims could not cover a mental process of determining an alertness level based on interaction data. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) a claimed invention may encompass an abstract idea if it represents concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind (with or without the aid of pencil and paper or a computer) such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the biometric, interaction, and/or use data of the claim encompass mental process because it represents observing gestures, movements, or reactions of a user. (see Spec. Para. [009] “the biometric data comprises biomotion data, and wherein the biomotion data comprises torso movement, limb movement, respiration, head movement, eye movement, hand/finger movement, or cardiac movement” and [0032] “The interaction data can include biometric data of the user (e.g. , blink rate, eye focus, and breathing rate), inertia data of the device (e.g. , swaying and orientation), and software-usage data of the device (e.g., button press speed and accuracy, app or action being used, and response times).”). This is one of more of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions because merely observing whether someone is using their device is all that is required. Because the identified features of the claim can be performed in the human mind, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. As such, this argument cannot be persuasive.
Regarding page 10-11, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application because the recitation of Applicant’s computing device would preclude an individual from performing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer (see Spec. Para. 0035). Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim. There is no indication that the computer is made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power. In fact, the computer may be caused to operate slower and less efficiently through the implementation of Applicant’s claimed invention; we do not know. Because there is no improvement to the function of the computer, a practical application is not present.
Regarding page 11, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the application under Step 2B, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” This step is directed towards the conventionality of a device, and thus Examiner maintains that the additional elements are conventional for a person having ordinary skill in the art, as depicted in the 101 analysis above regarding subject matter eligibility.
Regarding page 11-13, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jung does not teach “receiving a second message intended for presentation” because the “second determination operation”, as cited by Jung does not comprise the claim’s limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2111.01 states that “claims must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “receiving a second message intended for presentations by the computing device” comprises the limitations of Jung, as referenced above in the prior art rejection. To elaborate, the electronic message, sent out via the authoring network device can comprise multiple messages. As understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, when the system contains a feedback loop to repeatedly address the received messages, the authoring network device is not limited or restricted to receiving one message. The determination module, which is integrated with the authoring network device, comprises that feedback system which determines the observed result of the user by way of a determination operation. Thus, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection mapped out above.
Regarding page 12, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jung does not teach “the presentation scheme”. MPEP 2111.01 states that “claims must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0121] states “Under normal use (e.g., the current settings of the smartphone 220 without taking into account an alertness inference), the smartphone 220 can receive messages and present messages in a particular fashion, such as using a particular presentation scheme (e.g., present messages with audio and visual indicators).” This example describes the presentations of alarms in Jung’s disclosure and matches Jung’s presentation of sleep alarms. Thus, Examiner maintains that under broadest reasonable interpretation, Jung teaches the presentation scheme, as cited in the prior art rejection above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ANTHONY SKROBARCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30AM -5PM CST.
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 at (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.
/R.A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights