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 .
Status of Claims
This action is a final rejection
Claims 1-10, 14-16, 18-19, 22-23, 34-35, 54-57 are pending
Claims 11-13, 17, 20-21, 24-33, 36-53, 58-59 were previously cancelled
Claims 1, 8, 34, 54, 56 were amended
Claims 1-10, 14-16, 18-19, 22-23, 34-35, 54-57are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for a foreign priority date of 6-30-2020
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1-24-2023 & 3-26-2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10, 14-16, 18-19, 22-23, 34-35, 54-57 are not patent eligible because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
First, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. Regarding claims 1-10, 14-16, 18-19, 22-23, 34-35, 54-57 the claims recite an abstract idea of “prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response”.
Independent Claims 1 & 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 based on the following analysis.
-Step 1 (Does the claim fall within a statutory category? YES): claims 1 & 54 respectively recite a method and a system.
-Step 2A Prong One (Does the claim fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas?: YES):
receiving a first value for each of a plurality of parameters, each of the first values being associated with (i) a user and (ii) a first day;
receiving a second value for each of the plurality of parameters, each of the second values being associated with (i) the user and (ii) a second day that is subsequent to the first day;
determining, for each of the plurality of parameters, a trend indication, the trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first values, the second values, and a first time period;
determining a base weight value for (i) each of the plurality of parameters and (ii) multiple pairs of the plurality of parameters, the base weight value for each one of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first time period and the determined trend indication associated with the one of the plurality of parameters, and the base weight value for each one of the pairs of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first time period and the determined trend indication associated with each one of the parameters of the one pair of the plurality of parameters; and
causing a message to be communicated to the user that is based at least in part on the determined base weight values
adjusting a setting ... based at least in part on the at least one of the plurality of parameters; and
delivering pressurized air to the user.
belong to the grouping of mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind as it recites “prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response”. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response”. (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly this claim recites an abstract idea.
-Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO).
Claims 1 and 54 recite:
at least one of the plurality of parameters being associated with a pressure sensor integrated in the respiratory therapy system;
adjusting a setting associated with the respiratory therapy system;
delivering pressurized air to the user via the respiratory therapy system
Claim 54 recites:
a memory storing machine-readable instructions; and
a control system including one or more processors configured to execute the machine- readable instructions;
Amounting to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs [0056-0058]. [0061-0064], [0073-0090]. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
-Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two,
Claims 1 and 54 recite:
at least one of the plurality of parameters being associated with a pressure sensor integrated in the respiratory therapy system;
adjusting a setting associated with the respiratory therapy system;
delivering pressurized air to the user via the respiratory therapy system
Claim 54 recites:
a memory storing machine-readable instructions; and
a control system including one or more processors configured to execute the machine- readable instructions.
Amount to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs [0056-0058]. [0061-0064], [0073-0090]. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, even in combination the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
Step 2A Prong One: The following dependent claims recite additional limitations that further define the abstract idea of “prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response”. These claim limitations include:
Claim 2: further comprising analyzing the determined base weight values for each of the plurality of parameters and for each of the multiple pairs of the plurality of parameters to determine which of the determined base weight values is the greatest;
Claim 3: wherein the message is associated with the one of the plurality of parameters or the one of the multiple pairs of the plurality of parameters that is associated with the greatest determined base weight value;
Claim 4 & 55: wherein the first value and the second value for one or more of the plurality of parameters are determined based at least in part on data generated … during (i) at least a portion of the first day, (ii) at least a portion of a day that is immediately subsequent to the first day, or (iii) both (i) and (ii);
Claim 5: wherein each of the plurality of parameters is a sleep score, a sleepiness score, a blood pressure measurement, or an activity measurement;
Claim 6: wherein the sleepiness score is a subjective sleepiness score received from the user wherein the sleepiness score is a subjective sleepiness score received from the user;
Claims 7: wherein the first value and the second value for the sleep score are determined based at least in part on first physiological data generated.., the first value and the second value for the blood pressure measurement are determined at least in part on second physiological data generated …, and the first value and the second value for the activity measurement is determined based at least in part on third physiological generated;
Claims 14;
wherein the day that is immediately subsequent to the first day is the second day;
Claims 15: wherein the trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters is also based at least in part on a range of predetermined healthy threshold values for each of the plurality of parameters;
Claims 16: wherein the determining the trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters includes determining a rate of change between at least the first value and the second value for each of the plurality of parameters during the first time period, wherein the rate of change is associated with a slope of a line that is fitted to at least the first value and the second value
Claims 18: wherein the trend indication for a first one of the plurality of parameters is one of:
(a) a positive trend indication responsive to a determination that the slope of the fitted line is greater than a first slope threshold, or
(b) a negative trend indication responsive to a determination that the slope of the fitted line is less than a second slope threshold.
Claims 19: wherein the first slope threshold is 0.05,and/or the second slope threshold is -0.05;
Claims 22: wherein the trend indication for a first one of the plurality of parameters is a stable-good trend indication responsive to a determination that (i) the slope of the fitted line is within a range of slope thresholds and (ii) an average of at least the first value and the second value is within a range of healthy threshold values
Claims 23: wherein the trend indication for a first one of the plurality of parameters is a stable-bad trend indication responsive to a determination that (i) the slope of the fitted line is within a range of slope thresholds and (ii) an average of at least the first value and the second value is not within a range of healthy threshold values
Claims 34: wherein in response to determining that the determined base weight value for a first one of the plurality of parameters is equal to the determined base weight value for a second one of the plurality of parameters, the analyzing further includes modifying (i) the determined base weight value associated with the first one of the plurality of parameters based on a first veto multiplier associated with the first one of the plurality of parameters and (ii) the determined basevalue associated with the second one of the plurality of parameters based on a second veto multiplier associated with the second one of the plurality of multipliers.
Claims 35: further comprising analyzing the modified base weight values for the first one of the plurality of parameters and the second one of the plurality of parameters to determine which of the modified base weight values is the greatest
Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO). The following dependent claims recite additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims include:
Claim 4:
one or more sensors;
Claim 7:
first sensor;
second sensor;
third sensor
Claim 8 & 56:
wherein the first sensor is physically coupled to or integrated in a portion of the respiratory therapy system;
Claim 9 & 57:
wherein the second sensor is physically coupled to or integrated in a blood pressure device;
Claim 10:
wherein the third sensor is physically coupled to or integrated in an activity tracker, wherein the activity tracker is a wearable device;
Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO). As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the following dependent claims recite additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, even in combination the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible. The claims include:
Claim 4:
one or more sensors;
Claim 7:
first sensor;
second sensor;
third sensor
Claim 8 & 56:
wherein the first sensor is physically coupled to or integrated in a portion of the respiratory therapy system;
Claim 9 & 57:
wherein the second sensor is physically coupled to or integrated in a blood pressure device;
Claim 10:
wherein the third sensor is physically coupled to or integrated in an activity tracker, wherein the activity tracker is a wearable device;
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and is listed in the attached form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, all documents listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
DAWSON et al (US 20160379511 A1)- Apparatus, systems, and methods of health reporting are disclosed that enhance decision support and provide alerts when health deterioration or the need for intervention has been detected. Embodiments utilize combined pictorial representations (including physical, mental, and social health determinants) as an avatar or pictogram, comparing health status to a general or target population, and using different methods to represent and reinforce health status. The apparatus, systems, and methods further enable individuals to access their own medical records in a way that can be understood by them and therefore is more widely accessible. The invention enhances health reporting, improving utility, usability and desirability of health reporting tools.
HENEGHAN (WO 2015006364 A2)- A processing system includes methods to promote sleep. The system may include a monitor such as a non-contact motion sensor from which sleep information may be determined. User sleep information, such as sleep stages, hypnograms, sleep scores, mind recharge scores and body scores, may be recorded, evaluated and/or displayed for a user. The system may further monitor ambient and/or environmental conditions corresponding to sleep sessions. Sleep advice may be generated based on the sleep information, user queries and/or environmental conditions from one or more sleep sessions. Communicated sleep advice may include content to promote good sleep habits and/or detect risky sleep conditions. In some versions of the system, any one or more of a bedside unit 3000 sensor module, a smart processing device, such as a smart phone or smart device 3002, and network servers may be implemented to perform the methodologies of the system
SHOULDICE (WO 2019122412 A1) - Methods and devices provide physiological movement detection, such as breathing, cardiac and/or gross body motion, with active sound generation using electronic processing device(s). The processor may control producing, via a speaker coupled to the processor, a sound signal in a user's vicinity. The processor may control sensing, via a microphone coupled to the processor, a reflected sound signal. This reflected sound signal is a reflection of the sound signal from the vicinity or user. The processor may process the reflected sound, such as by a demodulation technique. The sound signal may be produced as a dual tone frequency modulation continuous wave signal. Evaluation of detected movement information may determine sleep states or scoring, fatigue indications, subject recognition, chronic disease monitoring/ prediction, and other output parameters
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-10-2025, have been fully considered but not found
persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 54, and dependent claims 8, 34, 56 as posted in the above analysis with additions underlined and deletions
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Several steps are taken in the analysis as to whether an invention is rejected under 101. The first step is to determine if the claim fall within a statutory category. Claims 1 & 54 do since they recite a method and system of prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response
The second step under 2A prong one is to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, which would be the case if the invention can be grouped as either: a) mathematical concepts; (b) mental processes; or (c) certain methods of organizing human activity (encompassing (i) fundamental economic principles, (ii) commercial or legal interactions or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). The current invention is classified as an abstract idea since it may be grouped as a mental process as it recites “prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response”. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response”.
The third step under 2A Prong Two is to determine if additional elements in the claim imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea in order to integrate it into a practical idea. The current invention does not represent a practical idea since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
the fourth step under 2B is to determine if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept. An invention may be classified as an inventive concept if a computer-implemented processes is determined to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. The current invention does not represent an inventive concept since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong ONE
The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, since they may not be grouped as a mental process or as certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
The Examiner disagrees since the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The method used to select the abstract idea, is to strip the additional elements from the claims. As seen below the recited boldened words constitute the abstract idea after stripping the un-boldened additional elements of amended limitation of claims 1 and 54:
Claims 1 & 54:
receiving a first value for each of a plurality of parameters, each of the first values being associated with (i) a user and (ii) a first day at least one of the plurality of parameters being associated with a pressure sensor integrated in the respiratory therapy system;
receiving a second value for each of the plurality of parameters, each of the second values being associated with (i) the user and (ii) a second day that is subsequent to the first day;
determining, for each of the plurality of parameters, a trend indication, the trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first values, the second values, and a first time period;
determining a base weight value for (i) each of the plurality of parameters and (ii) multiple pairs of the plurality of parameters, the base weight value for each one of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first time period and the determined trend indication associated with the one of the plurality of parameters, and the base weight value for each one of the pairs of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first time period and the determined trend indication associated with each one of the parameters of the one pair of the plurality of parameters;
causing a message to be communicated to the user that is based at least in part on the determined base weight values.
adjusting a setting associated with the respiratory therapy system based at least in part on the at least one of the plurality of parameters; and
delivering pressurized air to the user via the respiratory therapy system.
The selected abstract idea (boldened limitations) of claims 1 & 54 can be implemented by pencil and paper and thus belong to the grouping of mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) as it recites “prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response”. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “prioritizing messages to encourage a behavioral response”. (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong TWO
The Applicant argues that even if the claims recite an abstract idea the claimed subject matter is directed to a practical application based on the amendments.
The Examiner disagrees since the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Most of the added amendments constitute additional elements that do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
The Examiner restates that claims 1, 19 and 29 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Neither claims 1, 19 or 29 recite additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea:
Claims 1 and 54 recite:
at least one of the plurality of parameters being associated with a pressure sensor integrated in the respiratory therapy system;
adjusting a setting associated with the respiratory therapy system;
delivering pressurized air to the user via the respiratory therapy system
Claim 54 recites:
a memory storing machine-readable instructions; and
a control system including one or more processors configured to execute the machine- readable instructions.
The additional elements as recited above for claims 1 and 54 amount to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs [0056-0058]. [0061-0064], [0073-0090]. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical idea the Applicant could demonstrate at least one of the conditions enumerated below applies:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Applicant has not demonstrated any of the above listed conditions. As a result, the Examiner restates the rejection of the invention under 35 USC §101.
Step 2B
Similar to the analysis under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs [0039-0041] (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer components, in combination, do not perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if the generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
In order evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept what could be shown is:
Adding a specific limitation (unconventional other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d)
The Applicant has not demonstrated the above listed condition.
For reasons of record and as set forth above, the examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-10, 14-16, 18-19, 22-23, 34-35, 54-57 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and thereby being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC §101. In reaching this decision, the Examiner considered all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PIERRE L MACCAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-5408. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/PIERRE L MACCAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687