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 Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on March 16th , 2026. Claims 4-5, 17-19, 21-32, and 35-59 have been canceled as such claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 are pending consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “optimum comfort” in claim 60 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimum comfort” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “optimum comfort” is a qualitative adjective that is dependent from person to person, therefore, making it unclear what the appropriate level of tightness should be.
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, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 recites at least one step or instruction for receiving video information, modifying video information, and then providing feedback to a user (such as placement/positioning feedback), which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A system comprising:
an electronic interface (additional element) configured to receive
(i) a first real-time video of at least a portion of a face of a user, at least a portion of a head of the user, or a combination of the at least a portion of the face and the head of the user (prior extra-solutional activity); and
(2) a second real-time video of at least a portion of the face of the user, at least a portion of the head of the user, or a combination of at least a portion of the face and the head of the user, wherein a physical user interface (additional element) is configured to be worn by the user in the second real-time video (prior extra-solutional activity);
a memory storing machine-readable instructions (additional element); and
a control system including one or more processors (additional element) configured to execute the machine-readable instructions (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) to:
modify the first real-time video by superimposing a virtual user interface (extra-solutional activity):
provide feedback to the user in real time on the second real-time video (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG),
wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface (post extra-solutional activity).
Specifically, Claim 15 recites
A method comprising:
displaying a first real-time video of at least a portion of a face of a user, at least a portion of a head of the user, or a combination of the at least a portion of the face and the at least a portion of the head of the user (prior extra-solutional activity);
modify the first real-time video by superimposing a virtual user interface (extra-solutional activity):
displaying a second real-time video of at least a portion of the face of the user, at least a portion of a head of the user, or a combination of the at least a portion of the face and the at least a portion of the head of the user (prior extra-solutional activity),
wherein a physical user interface is configured to be worn by the user in the second real-time video (additional element); and
providing feedback to the user in real time (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) on the second real-time video;
wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG),
wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface (post extra-solutional activity).
Specifically, Claim 33 recites
A method comprising:
generating image data associated with at least a portion of a face of an individual (prior extra-solutional activity) and
disengaging a physical user interface, after a first period of time, from the face of the individual (extra-solutional activity; involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG),
the image data being generated within a second period of time (extra-solutional activity);
analyzing the generated image data to determine one or more characteristics of the face of the individual (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
providing feedback to the individual based at least in part on the determined one or more characteristics of the face of the individual (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG),
wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface (post extra-solutional activity).
Specifically, Claim 34 recites
A method comprising:
engaging a physical user interface (additional element) to a face of an individual (extra-solutional activity; involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG);
after a first period of time, disengaging the physical user interface from the face of the individual (extra-solutional activity; involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG);
after the disengaging and within a second period of time, generating image data associated with at least a portion of the face of the individual (extra-solutional activity; involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG);
analyzing the generated image data to determine one or more characteristics of the face of the individual (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
providing feedback to the individual based at least in part on the determined one or more characteristics of the face of the individual (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG),
wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface (post extra-solutional activity).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-3, 6-14, 16, 20, and 60-62 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 15, 33, and 34 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-3, 6-14, 16, 20, and 60-62) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 15, 33, and 34), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
an electronic interface, a memory, a control system, one or more processors, and a physical user interface as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims;
a physical user interface as recited in independent claim 15 and its dependent claims;
a physical user interface as recited in independent claim 33 and its dependent claims;
and physical user interface as recited in independent Claim 34 and its dependent claims
are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 15, 33, and 34 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 15, 33, and 34 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (control system including one or more processors as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 15, 33, and 34 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 15, 33, and 34 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of:
an electronic interface, a memory, a control system, one or more processors, and a physical user interface as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims;
a physical user interface as recited in independent claim 15 and its dependent claims;
a physical user interface as recited in independent claim 33 and its dependent claims;
and physical user interface as recited in independent Claim 34 and its dependent claims
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, a control system includes one or more processors (can include any suitable number of processors) where the control system is “generally used to control the various components and/or analyze data” (e.g. video information). Additionally, “the processor 112 can be a general processor” and “the memory device 114 can be any suitable computer readable storage device of media”, see [0029]-[0031].
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms control system, one or more processors, and memory are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the control system. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the systems and methods of Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 6-16, 20, 33, 34, and 60-62 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grashow (US 20170315359).
Regarding claim 1, Grashow discloses
A system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) comprising:
an electronic interface (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; AR apparatus 72, 92; [0033] and [0035]- [0038]) configured to receive
(i) a first real-time video of at least a portion of a face of a user, at least a portion of a head of the user, or a combination of the at least a portion of the face and the head of the user ((see figs. 4, 6, and 11; capture a video image of the physical, real-world environment being viewed by a wearer of AR apparatus 72, 92; [0035] and [0038]); and
(2) a second real-time video of at least a portion of the face of the user, at least a portion of the head of the user, or a combination of at least a portion of the face and the head of the user, wherein a physical user interface is configured to be worn by the user in the second real-time video (see figs. 6 and 7; “reference numeral 60 represents the un-augmented real world view wherein the patient is wearing a particular patient interface device 62”; [0032], where such views may be implemented using AR apparatus 72, 92; [0036] and [0039]);
a memory storing machine-readable instructions 9(see figs. 8 and 10; memory 12 stores instructions, [0024]-[0025]); and
a control system including one or more processors configured to execute the machine-readable instructions (processor apparatus 8 provides control signals to control operation and comprises processor 10 and memory 12; [0023]-[0025]) to:
modify the first real-time video by superimposing a virtual user interface ((see figs. 4 and 11 showing overlay; “ controlled by processor apparatus 8 to: (i) capture a video image of the physical, real-world environment being viewed by a wearer of AR apparatus 72, 92, (ii) generate overlay imagery from the AR component data files 16, (iii) combine the captured video image and the generated overlay imagery to create an augmented video image, and (iv) cause the augmented video image to be displayed”, see [0035] and [0038]);
provide feedback (see figs. 6 and 7; indicators 66A and 66B associated with patient interface device 62; [0032]) to the user in real time on the second real-time video ((see figs. 6 and 7; using AR apparatus 72, 92 and AR data files 16 comprising information tags to facilitate fitting of a patient based on augmented video image 68; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]);
wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face (see fig, 7; the tags 66a and 66b provide a location by having a line drawn to the area that needs adjusting and are pointing to a strap that needs to be tightened to remove eye leaks or cheek/upper lip leaks; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]),
wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface (see fig. 7; tags 66a and 66b provides feedback of tightening straps of the physical interface 62 to eliminate leaks; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]), (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface.
Regarding claim 2, Grashow further discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 1,
wherein the virtual user interface is a mask (see figs. 3, 4, and 11; image 24, 26, and 34; shows a patient interface or mask) and the physical user interface is a mask (see figs. 7; patient is wearing a patient interface/mask device 62, see [0032]) .
Regarding claim 3, Grashow further discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 2,
wherein the mask is a full face mask, a nasal mask, or a nasal pillow mask (see [0004], “the mask component may be, without limitation, a nasal mask that covers the patient's nose, a nasal cushion having nasal prongs that are received within the patient's nares, a nasal/oral mask that covers the patient's nose and mouth, or a full face mask that covers the patient's face”).
Regarding claim 9, Grashow further discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 1
further including providing an input for the user to select the virtual user interface used in the first real-time video (see figs. 1, 8, and 10; AR apparatus 72, 92 includes input/output device 6 to select options on menu such as patient interface device image 24 (see fig. 4); [0023] and [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Grashow further discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 1,
wherein the superimposed virtual user interface moves in sync in the first real-time video with at least a portion of a face of a user, at least a portion of a head of the user, or a combination of the at least a portion of the face and the head of the user (“AR apparatus 72, 92 is structured to implement a video AR system wherein real world views captured may be augmented in real-time using images (video images)”; [0035] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Grashow further discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 1,
wherein the first real-time video and the second real-time video are generated using a camera (see figs. 8-11; “image capture devices 78A, 78B, 94 are any device capable of capturing an image in digital form, such as a CCD camera or an analog camera”; [0035] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Grashow discloses
A method (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) comprising:
displaying a first real-time video of at least a portion of a face of a user, at least a portion of a head of the user, or a combination of the at least a portion of the face and the at least a portion of the head of the user (see figs. 4, 6, and 11; capture a video image of the physical, real-world environment being viewed by a wearer of AR apparatus 72, 92 and displays augmented images via display devices 80a, 80b, 96; [0035] and [0038]);
modifying the first real-time video by superimposing a virtual user interface (see figs. 4 and 11 showing overlay; “ controlled by processor apparatus 8 to: (i) capture a video image of the physical, real-world environment being viewed by a wearer of AR apparatus 72, 92, (ii) generate overlay imagery from the AR component data files 16, (iii) combine the captured video image and the generated overlay imagery to create an augmented video image, and (iv) cause the augmented video image to be displayed”, see [0035] and [0038]);
displaying a second real-time video of at least a portion of a face of a user, at least a portion of a head of the user, or a combination of the at least a portion of the face and the at least a portion of the head of the user, and the user in the second real-time video wearing a physical user interface (see figs. 6 and 7; “reference numeral 60 represents the un-augmented real world view wherein the patient is wearing a particular patient interface device 62”; [0032], where such views may be implemented using AR apparatus 72, 92 and shown by displays 80a, 80b, 96; [0035]-[0039]);
and providing feedback (see figs. 6 and 7; indicators 66A and 66B associated with patient interface device 62; [0032]) to the user in real time on the second real-time video (see figs. 6 and 7; using AR apparatus 72, 92 and AR data files 16 comprising information tags to facilitate fitting of a patient based on augmented video image 68; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]).
wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face (see fig, 7; the tags 66a and 66b provide a location by having a line drawn to the area that needs adjusting and are pointing to a strap that needs to be tightened to remove eye leaks or cheek/upper lip leaks; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]),
wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface (see fig. 7; tags 66a and 66b provides feedback of tightening straps of the physical interface 62 to eliminate leaks; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]), (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface.
Regarding claim 16, Grashow further discloses
the method (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 15,
wherein the virtual user interface is a mask (see figs. 3, 4, and 11; image 24, 26, and 34; shows a patient interface or mask) and the physical user interface is a mask (see figs. 7; patient is wearing a patient interface/mask device 62, see [0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grashow (US 20170315359) in view of Selvarajan (US 20080060652).
Regarding claim 6, Grashow discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 1,
Grashow does not disclose wherein the feedback is a recommendation to replace the physical user interface in the second real-time video with another physical user interface.
However, Selvarajan discloses an analogous mask fitting system
wherein the feedback is a recommendation to replace the physical user interface with another physical user interface (see Fig. 7B-3; uses full facial scans to see how patients face has changed/whether mask fits and with the information makes a recommendation to whether patient requires a new mask (replace old mask with new one); [0155] and [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video augmented apparatus of Grashow with the ability with the recommendation/view program of Selvarajan to be able to provide recommendations based on the way the mask fits onto the face of the patient such as a recommendation as to whether the patient requires a new mask size (Selvarajan: [0155] and [0171]).
It directly follows that the resultant augmented apparatus of Grashow combined with the program of Selvarajan would be able to create a recommendation of a new mask based on the video images where a patient is wearing a physical interface device (second real-time video).
Regarding claim 7, Grashow discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 1,
Grashow does not explicitly disclose wherein the feedback is displaying both the first real-time video and the second real-time video in adjacent sections of a screen.
However, Selvarajan discloses an analogous mask fitting system with a software that displays two facial scans using adjacent sections of a screen (see Fig. 7B-3, [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the displays and processor of Grashow with a display that provides two section for two different scans as taught in Selvarajan to be able to display more than one video (Selvarajan: [0017-[0018]) and see areas where most change has occurred (Selvarajan: [0171]).
It directly follows that the resultant display devices of Grashow combined with the split section display of Selvarajan would be able to meet the claimed structural limitations since:
wherein the feedback is displaying both the first real-time video (Grashow: see figs. 4 and 11; capture a video image of the physical, real-world environment being viewed by a wearer of AR apparatus 72, 92; [0035] and [0038]) and the second real-time video (see figs. 6 and 7; “reference numeral 60 represents the un-augmented real world view wherein the patient is wearing a particular patient interface device 62”; [0032], where such views may be implemented using AR apparatus 72, 92; [0036] and [0039]) in adjacent sections of a screen (Selvarajan: split screen/display as seen om Fig. 7B-3).
Regarding claim 20, Grashow discloses
the method (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 15,
Grashow does not disclose wherein the feedback is a recommendation to replace the physical user interface in the second real-time video with another physical user interface.
However, Selvarajan discloses an analogous mask fitting system
wherein the feedback is a recommendation to replace the physical user interface in the second real-time video with another physical user interface (see Fig. 7B-3; uses full facial scans to see how patients face has changed/whether mask fits and with the information makes a recommendation to whether patient requires a new mask (replace old mask with new one); [0155] and [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video augmented apparatus of Grashow with the ability with the recommendation/view program of Selvarajan to be able to provide recommendations based on the way the mask fits onto the face of the patient such as a recommendation as to whether the patient requires a new mask size (Selvarajan: [0155] and [0171]).
It directly follows that the resultant augmented apparatus of Grashow combined with the program of Selvarajan would be able to create a recommendation of a new mask based on the video images where a patient is wearing a physical interface device (second real-time video).
Claims 8 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grashow (US 20170315359) in view of Lawrenson (US 20170203071).
Regarding claim 8, Grashow discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 1,
Grashow does not disclose further including showing the steps of placing the virtual user interface onto the face and the head of the user.
However, Lawrenson disclose an analogous system for fitting a mask
further including showing the steps of placing the virtual user interface onto the face and the head of the user (instructions on how to use the patient interface in a proper way; [0012], [0037]; advice unit generates personalized advice (adjustment instructions) based on virtual model, information specific to patient interface, and specific locations; [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented apparatus and processor of Grashow with personalized advice and instructions as taught in Lawrenson to provide instructions/advice to patients, especially inexperienced patients, on how to use/set up a patient interface that is customized/personalized to a specific user (Lawrenson: [0012]).
Regarding claim 61, Grashow discloses
the system (system for providing a real-time video images of the patient) of claim 1,
provide feedback (see figs. 6 and 7; indicators 66A and 66B associated with patient interface device 62; [0032]) to the user in real time on the second real-time video ((see figs. 6 and 7; using AR apparatus 72, 92 and AR data files 16 comprising information tags to facilitate fitting of a patient based on augmented video image 68; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]);
Grashow does not explicitly disclose wherein providing feedback to the user in real time on the second real-time video further comprises: estimating a head shape of the user using a three-dimensional model based on a plurality of two-dimensional images of the user taken at various angles; and determining optimum positioning of the strap assembly on the head of the user based on the three-dimensional model.
However, Lawrenson discloses an analogous patient apparatus for providing personalized advice
wherein providing feedback to the user (fig. 1; wherein the image shows the patient wearing the patient interface 18 including a written advice 56 which is virtually overlaid on said image. The personalized advice 56 may e.g. tell the user to pull the left strap 30 of the headgear 28 by e.g. 10 mm.; [0099]) further comprises:
estimating a head shape of the user using a three-dimensional model based on a plurality of two-dimensional images of the user taken at various angles (fig. 1; system creates a “virtual model” of the head of the patient (or at least parts of it) refers to a two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) model of the patient's head (or at least parts of it). This virtual model may e.g. be obtained by means of a 2D or 3D scanning apparatus that reproduces the shape and size of the head of the patient in virtual form; [0033]); and
determining optimum positioning of the strap assembly on the head of the user (fig. 1; The personalized advice 56 may e.g. tell the user to pull the left strap 30 of the headgear 28 by e.g. 10 mm.; [0099])based on the three-dimensional model (fig. 1; calculates the personalized advice that helps the patient to improve the use of the pressure support system 14 and its components based on the virtual 3D model; [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented apparatus and processor of Grashow with personalized advice and instructions as taught in Lawrenson to provide instructions/advice to patients based on a created 3d model, especially inexperienced patients, on how to use/set up a patient interface that is customized/personalized to a specific user (Lawrenson: [0012], [0033], [0099]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grashow (US 20170315359) in view of Ablavatski (Article: Real-Time AR Self-Expression with Machine Learning).
Regarding claim 11, Grashow discloses
the system (see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]) of claim 1,
wherein superimposing the mask uses an algorithm that is trained to receive as an input: (i) information from the first real-time video and (2) database from a plurality of virtual user interfaces (processor using algorithm captures video image shown as image views (information from the video) and overlays augmented data files 16 which can represent “a number of 2D or 3D patient interface device images that may be rendered on the real-world view of a patient's face”; [0025] and [0035]-[0039]).
Grashow does not explicitly disclose the algorithm/process being used as being a machine learning algorithm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the process of Grashow uses machine learning as it relies on complex tasks such as detecting the patient’s face, identifying the patient interface, and augmenting positional tracking in real-time (Grashow: [0022]-[0042]). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use machine learning in order to infer approximate 3D surface geometry to improve accuracy and refine predictions (Ablavatski: see pages 2-4 discussing using machine learning with video facial scans for augmented reality).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Grashow discloses
the system (Grashow: see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]; Ablavatski: reasons for using machine learning) of claim 11,
wherein superimposing the mask uses a machine learning algorithm that is trained to receive as an input further includes: (iii) user-entered information (Grashow: processor overlaying mask using inputs/selections; [0023], [0025], [0028], and [0035]-[0039]; Ablavatski: see pages 2-4 discussing using machine learning with video facial scans for augmented reality).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grashow (US 20170315359) in view of Ablavatski (Article: Real-Time AR Self-Expression with Machine Learning) and further in view of Selvarajan (US 20080060652).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Grashow discloses
the system (Grashow: see figs. 3-4, 6-11; system for providing a real-time video images of the patient; abstract and [0020]-[0022]; Ablavatski: reasons for using machine learning) of claim 12,
The modified device of Grashow does not disclose wherein the user-entered information includes (i) measurements of the face or the head; (ii) measurements of one or more features on the face or head; (iii) identification of breathing method; (iv) gender, (v) ethnicity; (vi) amount of hair; or (vii) any combination thereof.
However, Selvarajan discloses an analogous mask fitting system
wherein the user-entered information (information such as dimensions may be measured and input into terminal 6; [0145]) includes (i) measurements of the face or the head; (ii) measurements of one or more features on the face or head; (iii) identification of breathing method; (iv) gender, (v) ethnicity; (vi) amount of hair; (see Fig. 5; questionnaire with several questions including patients’ relevant head/facial dimensions, type of breathing patient normally experiences, physical characteristics of patient, patient’s age, whether patient has facial hair, or whether patient has facial hair; [0072] and [0075]-[0076]) or (vii) any combination thereof .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device and processor of the modified device of Grashow to be able to include user-entered information such as patient measurements/dimensions, type of breathing, and other characteristic as taught in Selvarajan to produce a best-fit mask fitting result which is indicative of one or more commercially available mask system that would be most appropriate for the patient (Selvarajan: [0072])
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvarajan (US 20080060652) in view of Grashow (US 20170315359).
Regarding claim 33, Selvarajan discloses
a method (methods for selecting mask systems for patients; abstract) comprising:
generating image data associated with at least a portion of a face of an individual who has disengaged a physical user interface after a first period of time on the face of the individual (see [0171] and Fig. 7B-3, full facial scans (image data) of the patient are made over time to see changes in face/mask fit; therefore, the second facial scan is made after disengaging the first mask system that’s been used for a period of time),
the image data being generated within a second period of time (multiple images taken to generate 3D contour of patient’s face, [0159]; it would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that an amount of time (loading time and time to take the photos) would be needed to generate the contour/scan;
analyzing the generated image data to determine one or more characteristics of the face of the individual (see Fig. 7B-3; shows geometrically how the patients face has changed; [0171]); and
providing feedback to the individual based at least in part on the determined one or more characteristics of the face of the individual (see Fig. 7B-3; shows areas that has changed and provides recommendation to the patient on if a new mask is required based on said changes; [0171]).
Selvarajan does not disclose wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face; wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface.
However, Grashow discloses a method for providing real-time video images of the patient for providing feedback
wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face (see fig, 7; the tags 66a and 66b provide a location by having a line drawn to the area that needs adjusting and are pointing to a strap that needs to be tightened to remove eye leaks or cheek/upper lip leaks; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]),
wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface (see fig. 7; tags 66a and 66b provides feedback of tightening straps of the physical interface 62 to eliminate leaks; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]), (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for selecting masks of Selvarajan with the method of providing feedback of Grashow to provide a number of informational tags/indictors that may be rendered on the real-world view of a patient's face that, for example and without limitation, indicate problems areas on the patient's face/head or instructions for using a particular patient interface device (Grashow: see fig. 7; [0025] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 34, Selvarajan discloses
a method (methods for selecting mask systems for patients; abstract) comprising:
engaging a physical user interface to a face of an individual (delta program uses facial scans to see change from before initial mask was recommended, [0171]; use a first mask system for a predetermined period of time, [0155]);
after a first period of time, disengaging the physical user interface from the face of the individual (see [0171] and Fig. 7B-3, full facial scans (image data) of the patient are made over time to see changes in face/mask fit; therefore, the second facial scan is made after disengaging the first mask system that’s been used for a period of time);
after the disengaging and within a second period of time, generating image data associated with at least a portion of the face of the individual (multiple images taken to generate 3D contour of patient’s face, [0159]; it would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that an amount of time (loading time and time to take the photos) would be needed to generate the contour/scan);
analyzing the generated image data to determine one or more characteristics of the face of the individual (see Fig. 7B-3; shows geometrically how the patients face has changed; [0171]); and
providing feedback to the individual based at least in part on the determined one or more characteristics of the face of the individual (see Fig. 7B-3; shows areas that has changed and provides recommendation to the patient on if a new mask is required based on said changes; [0171]).
Selvarajan does not disclose wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face; wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface.
However, Grashow discloses a method for providing real-time video images of the patient for providing feedback
wherein the feedback identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face (see fig, 7; the tags 66a and 66b provide a location by having a line drawn to the area that needs adjusting and are pointing to a strap that needs to be tightened to remove eye leaks or cheek/upper lip leaks; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]),
wherein the problem relates to one or more of (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface (see fig. 7; tags 66a and 66b provides feedback of tightening straps of the physical interface 62 to eliminate leaks; [0032] and [0035]-[0039]), (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for selecting masks of Selvarajan with the method of providing feedback of Grashow to provide a number of informational tags/indictors that may be rendered on the real-world view of a patient's face that, for example and without limitation, indicate problems areas on the patient's face/head or instructions for using a particular patient interface device (Grashow: see fig. 7; [0025] and [0032]).
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grashow (US 20170315359) in view of Dugan (US 20120285448) and further in view of Lawrenson (US 20170203071).
Regarding claim 60, Grashow discloses
the system (system for providing a real-time video images of the patient) of claim 1,
Grashow does not disclose wherein the feedback further comprises determining, based on elongation of a plurality of elastic indicators located a pre-determined length apart from each other on the physical user interface, whether the physical user interface is under-tightened or over-tightened, and providing feedback to the user to tighten or loosen the physical user interface to an appropriate level of tightness for optimum comfort.
Dugan discloses a mask that can be adjusted due to unintentional leakage
wherein the feedback further comprises determining, based on elongation of a plurality of elastic indicators (opaque side straps 112 of any color may stretch slightly and become translucent or transparent enough that that an embedded colored thread (e.g., a red thread) becomes visibly exposed in response to the stress of the side strap being stretched into an over tight state; [0076]) located a pre-determined length apart from each other on the physical user interface (see fig. 1; straps 112 are positioned on opposite sides of the users face), whether the physical user interface is under-tightened or over-tightened (the change of colors or change from opaque to somewhat translucent, transparent in response to a level of force induced stress on the strap which is indicative of a level of force or strap tightening that is considered to be so tight as to cause necrosis if not loosened; [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented system and processor of Grashow with the changing of color/opaqueness of the straps as taught in Dugan to indicate a level of force or strap tightening that is considered to be so tight as to cause necrosis if not loosened when the straps of the mask are stretched to an over-tightened state (Dugan: [0076]).
The modified device of Grashow does not explicitly disclose providing feedback to the user to tighten or loosen the physical user interface to an appropriate level of tightness for optimum comfort.
However, Lawrenson disclose an analogous system for fitting a mask and
providing feedback to the user to tighten or loosen the physical user interface (fig. 1; generate the personalized advice the system to tighten or loosen the physical user interface; [0032], [0037]-[0038], [0099]) to an appropriate level of tightness for optimum comfort (settings of the headgear straps that lead to optimal comfort and function, i.e. information how strong the headgear straps should be tightened and where the headgear straps should be positioned for the individual patient; [0037]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented apparatus and processor of Grashow with personalized advice and instructions as taught in Lawrenson to provide instructions/advice to patients, especially inexperienced patients, on how to use/set up a patient interface that is customized/personalized to a specific user and adjust the headgear straps in a position that leads to optimal comfort and function (Lawrenson: [0012]; [0037]-[0038]).
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grashow (US 20170315359) in view of Lashinsky (US 20200384229).
Regarding claim 62, Grashow discloses
the system (system for providing a real-time video images of the patient) of claim 1,
Grashow does not disclose wherein the feedback further comprises highlighting certain regions where the physical user interface is located outside optimal positions using a first color, and highlighting an optimal area where the physical user interface should be located using a second color different from the first color.
Lashinsky discloses a system for scanning a user’s face for selecting a mask
wherein the feedback further comprises highlighting certain regions where the user is located outside optimal positions using a first color (see figs. 18-28; highlights the indicator 226 in red when the users face is outside the correct position; [0049]-[0050]), and
highlighting an optimal area where the user should be located using a second color different from the first color (see figs. 18-28; indicator 226 and corrective instructions 232 provide instructions of where the user should be located and is changed to a green color at a correct location; [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the augmented reality apparatus and processor of Grashow to be able to provide a color change indicator and corrective instructions as taught in Lashinsky to the patient interface of Grashow in order to have an indicated colors that visually represents whether a components is not properly located and how to correct the position (Lashinsky: [0049]-[0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that amended independent claims overcome the 101 rejection. At the end of page 7 and beginning of page 8, the claims have been amended to “where in a physical user interface is configured to be worn by the user”, while it is agreed that this amendment overcome the 101 human organism, it is disagreed that the 101 regarding the abstract idea has been overcome (see 101 rejection above and below response).
More specifically, on page 8 of the remarks Applicant argues that the amended recites of “"identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face, wherein the problem relates to one or more of: (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface" overcomes the 101 rejection as it integrates the abstract idea in practical application. However, identifying a location and a type of problem with the positioning of the physical user interface is still a determination which is linked to an abstract idea which can be done in the human mind. Further, the last part of the limitation is simply extra-solution activity that further defines the abstract idea of determine what the problem relates to, in other words, what type of problem is being determined. To integrate an abstract idea into practical application, the abstract idea needs to be used by a structural component in a closed loop, simply providing information or data on a display (known computer component) would not overcome the 101 rejection. An example of this would be, “wherein a ventilator is configured to adjust flow based on the provided feedback”.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant further argues that the feedback limitation requires the system to automatically analyze video imagery in real time, identify the specific location of positioning problems, and provide this feedback in real time as the user adjust the interface would not be capable of being performed in the human. However, the examiner disagrees as a human such as a clinician can look at a video of the user, determine if it’s too tight/loose, and simply point out/provide feedback the user to adjust tighten/loosen the straps based on if it needs adjusting. Further, an example of a person doing such actions analyzing/looking at a video would be equivalent to looking into a mirror and adjusting the mask based on if it doesn’t fit. It is noted that applicant further states that this would require computational image analysis that encompass AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the mind. However, the claims do not require such computational image analysis that would indicate AI, nor is AI listed in the claims. Further, as listed in Applicant’s specification the computer module/controller being used is a generic control module [0029]-[0031] that is able to perform said functions.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant further argues that the additional elements are significantly more . More specifically that the specific combination of analyzing real-time video to identify problems categorized by physical component type and providing feedback represents an unconventional technical solution. However, the analyzing of the real-time to identify problems and provide feedback are not additional elements (see 101 rejection above), but rather the abstract idea itself. Components such as the control module, patient interface, straps, displays, etc. are all well-known additional elements in the art.
On pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Grashow does not disclose the newly amended limitation of "identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face, wherein the problem relates to one or more of: (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface” as while Grashow displays feedback, it does not dynamically determine feedback of where on the user’s face a positioning problem exists and further does not disclose the problem relating to whether the strap is too tight or loose. However, as the claim as recited can be broadly interpreted as the feedback (it does not necessarily need to be dynamically changing as the claim merely states that it provides feedback) identifies a location where there is a problem which Grashow has indicator tags with lines that point to the strap that needs to be tightened (location of where a problem is) and recited that “the problem relates” does not necessarily mean that the problem is the strap assembly, but could also be interpreted as a problem that is related to why the strap assembly is being tightened or loosened such as a cheek/lip leak (problem).
On page 11 of the remarks, Applicant further argues that Grashow fails to disclose the dependent claims at least for their dependence off of claim 1. This argument is unpersuasive in view of response above.
On page 12 of the remarks, Applicant further argues that Selvarajan does not disclose the newly amended limitations of claims 33-34 where it recites "identifies a location and type of problem with positioning of the physical user interface relative to the user's face, wherein the problem relates to one or more of: (i) tightening or loosening a strap assembly of the physical user interface, (ii) relocating the strap assembly, or (iii) relocating a cushion of the physical user interface”. This argument is moot in view of using Grashow to disclose such limitations (see above).
On page 12 of the remarks, Applicant further argues that Grashow and Selvarajan fail to disclose the dependent claims at least for their dependence off of claim 1. This argument is unpersuasive in view of response above.
On page 13 of the remarks, Applicant further states that Lawrenson further does not disclose the newly amended limitation (as listed above) as it provides generalized advice such as “pull the left headgear strap 30 through the clasp by 10mm” and that it relies on a pre-stored virtual model of the patient’s head combined with technical data about the patient interface to generate advice”. However, this is in direct contrast to Lawrenson specifically stating that the advice is personalized advice (not generic) that is generated based off the 3D model and the technical data about the patient interface and further states that the 3D model does not necessarily need to be a pre-stored virtual model but can be a 3D model of the patient's head may be generated by the patient 12 him-/herself in a life session generated by a 3D scanner, [0095] and [0099]). Therefore, Grashow in combination with Lawrenson would also be capable of meeting the newly amended claim limitation.
On pages 13-15 of the remarks, Applicant further states that further dependent claims should also be allowable due to their dependency off of their respective independent claims. For reasons states above, this argument is deemed unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vlutters (US 20160148437) – An electronic apparatus for selecting a patient interface device using a geometric fit score determining unit
Lashinsky (US 20200384229) – A method for identifying a particular mask for patient use, overlaying images of different masks with image of patient
Lucey (US 20170173289) – A method using digital scans of a user’s face and generating a 3D representation of the user’s face using video data
Sadrnoori (US 20210038117) – A CPAP system that uses a camera and virtual reality to overlay images of different types of masks onto the user’s face
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 SYDNEY REYES RUSSELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930am -6pm.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/S.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights