DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 31, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 88 and 97 have been amended. Claims 1-87 have been canceled. Claims 102-107 have been withdrawn. Claims 88-101 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9m 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant notes Claim Objection, pg. 8 of Remarks:
Claim Objections
Claim 97 is amended to depend on claim 88, thereby making this objection moot.
Withdrawn based on the claim amendment.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 8 of Remarks:
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 88-101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. While Applicant respectfully disagrees with this rejection, for reasons unrelated to patentability and in an effort to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims herein.
In the prior response, claim 88 was amended to recite, inter alia, "determining, via signal strength of a wireless connection between the user device and the respiratory therapy device, a distance between the user device and the respiratory therapy device; determining, based at least in part on the distance, that the individual associated with the user device is positioned in the environment;" and "generating one or more sleep performance metrics using the first sleep performance data and the second sleep performance data based at least in part on the determination that the individual is positioned in the environment." The Office Action indicates that the above recited element of determining a distance between the user device and the respiratory therapy device "is not considered abstract, but it is recited at too high a level, to the point where the specification does not teach the feature."
However, the Office Action indicates that the current specification does teach, at paragraphs [0184] and [0185], that a distance can be estimated between two user devices. Thus, paragraphs [0184] and [0185] disclose sufficient details at not "too high a level" of how the distance can be estimated between two user devices. Claim 88 is amended to recite "estimating, based on received signal strength indications of wireless transmissions exchanged between the first user device and a second user device associated with the user of the respiratory therapy device, a distance between the first user device and the second user device." Distance estimation is anchored to ranging operations using two user devices via wireless transmissions between the two devices, which provides a non-abstract and sufficiently detailed concrete technical constraint on the claim, thereby integrating any abstract ideas into a practical application.
Further, the additional added limitations of "determining, based at least in part on the estimated distance satisfying a threshold corresponding to a same environment, that the individual and the user are positioned in the same environment during at least a portion of the sleep session;" and "generating one or more sleep performance metrics using the first sleep performance data and the second sleep performance data based at least in part on the determination that the individual and the user are positioned in the same environment and during a time interval in which the respiratory therapy device usage information indicates the respiratory therapy device is active;" introduces_a concrete threshold criterion on the estimated distance to conclude that the user and the individual are in the same environment, and further ties that conclusion to an explicit portion of the sleep session. These steps tie the processing of the first and second sleep performance data to a non-abstract, concrete and validated time and place.
In reviewing the amended claim, there are no teachings of satisfying a threshold distance taught in the specification.
The determination of the persons in the cohort and their shared environment is useful for determining the actions to be taken for improving the sleep of a therapy user in the cohort or for both the members of the cohort. For example, the sleep performance of the individual can be used to adjust the parameters of the user undergoing respiratory therapy, and simulated respiratory therapy device sounds can be generated to help the individual get used to sleeping with their cohort user of the respiratory therapy device.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 88 is patent eligible. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 88-101 under section 101 be withdrawn.
The amended claims have raised new 35 USC 112(a) issues. While determining distance would not itself be abstract, it is just taught at too high of a level. The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112 Rejection, pg. 9 of Remarks:
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims 88-101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Amendments to claim 88 render this rejection moot.
The prior rejection is withdrawn. However, the amendments have resulted in a new rejection.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 10 of Remarks:
Applicant has amended their claims, rendering their arguments moot. Based on the claim amendments and further search and consideration, the prior art rejection is withdrawn.
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 88-101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 88-101 are directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 88 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 88 recites the limitations of:
A method comprising:
receiving, via a first user device associated with an individual, sensor data from one or more sensors, the sensor data being associated with a sleep session of the individual;
determining, for the individual, first sleep performance data from the sensor data, the first sleep performance data including sleep stage information or sleep state information;
receiving second sleep performance data, the second sleep performance data being associated with a sleep session of a user of a respiratory therapy device, the respiratory therapy device being positioned in an environment, the second sleep performance data including respiratory therapy device usage information indicative of one or more time intervals during which the respiratory therapy device is active;
estimating, based on received signal strength indications of wireless transmissions exchanged between the first user device and a second user device associated with the user of the respiratory therapy device, a distance between the first user device and the second user device;
determining, based at least in part on the estimated distance satisfying a threshold corresponding to a same environment, that the individual and the user are positioned in the same environment during at least a portion of the sleep session;
generating one or more sleep performance metrics using the first sleep performance data and the second sleep performance data based at least in part on the determination that the individual and the user are positioned in the same environment
and during a time interval in which the respiratory therapy device usage information indicates the respiratory therapy device is active; and
causing the one or more sleep performance metrics to be presented.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behavior (e.g., determining first and second sleep performance including sleep stage, generating and presenting one or more sleep performance metrics). The claim is also abstract as managing relationships or interactions between people (e.g., receiving second sleep performance data, generating sleep performance metrics using first and second sleep performance data and presenting one or more performance metrics). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 88 is abstract (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claim is abstract)
In as much as a person can see or hear (sense) sleep data (time go to bed, fall asleep, partner snoring, partner awake, etc.), determine sleep performance (awake, snoring, partner sound asleep, etc.), determine based on distance an individual is positioned in the environment, generate a sleep performance metric (total time awake, asleep, etc.), and cause performance metrics to be presented, the claims are also abstract under mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Further, while no computer is claimed, it has been shown using a generic computer to perform a judicial exception can be a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: first user device, sensor(s), respiratory therapy device (Claim 88). The sensor and respiratory therapy device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic devices performing a generic functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic components. See para. [0111] of the specification and use of general-purpose computer. The estimating based on received signal strength between a first and second user device a distance is recited at a high level of generality, and there is no teaching in the specification of this as to a technical benefit. Also, the determining an estimated distance satisfying a threshold cannot be found in the specification and is recited at too high a generality (para. [0184] and [0185]. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 88 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as receiving and presenting are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claim 88 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 89-101 further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claim 88 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims to not recite any additional elements, and are themselves either abstract or further limiting abstract concepts from the independent claim. Claims 90, 102, 104, 105, and 107 recite respiratory therapy device usage applied at a high level of generality. Claims 99, 101, and 107 recite a user device which is a generic device applied at a high level of generally. Therefore, the claims 89-101 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 88-101 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 88-101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 88 recites “determining, based at least in part on the estimated distance satisfying a threshold corresponding to a same environment, that the individual and the user are positioned in the same environment during at least a portion of the sleep session…” where no teaching of estimated distance satisfying a threshold can be found in the specification.
From Applicant’s specification…
“A distance between the first user device 570A and the second user device 570B can be estimated based on sensor data collected by the one or more sensors within each of the user devices 570A, 570B. In some cases, the distance can be estimated based on signal strength of a wireless signal, such as a Bluetooth signal transmitted between the user devices 570A, 570B. In some cases, the distance can be estimated based on echoes detected by microphones of user devices 570A, 570B.” [0184]
“The distance between the user devices 570A, 570B can be used to infer whether or not cohort member 520 is sleeping in the same environment 500 as cohort member 510. For example, if the distance is determined to be relatively small, as seen in FIG. 5, an inference can be made that cohort member 520 is sleeping in the same bed as cohort member 510. At a slightly larger distance, an inference may be made that the cohort members 510, 520 are sleeping in the same room. In some cases, the distance can indicate that the cohort members 510, 520 are sleeping in adjacent room. In some cases, the distance can indicate that the cohort members 510, 520 are sleeping in the same house (e.g., same building). In some cases, the distance can indicate that cohort member 520 is not sleeping in the same environment 500 as cohort member 510.” [0185]
The above does not teach threshold or distance satisfying a threshold, only that if the distance is small (which is a relative term), then infer the cohort member is in the same bed.
Claim 88 recites “estimating, based on received signal strength indications of wireless transmissions exchanged between the first user device and a second user device associated with the user of the respiratory therapy device, a distance between the first user device and the second user device…”
An adequate written description for a computer-implemented functional claim limitation contains both the computer and the algorithm that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement (MPEP § 2161.01).
Applicant’s specification teaches… “A distance between the first user device 570A and the second user device 570B can be estimated based on sensor data collected by the one or more sensors within each of the user devices 570A, 570B. In some cases, the distance can be estimated based on signal strength of a wireless signal, such as a Bluetooth signal transmitted between the user devices 570A, 570B. In some cases, the distance can be estimated based on echoes detected by microphones of user devices 570A, 570B.” [0184]
The instant disclosure fails to adequately disclose the method of performing said estimating a distance based on signal strength indications of wireless transmissions exchanged between a first and a second user device. One could not reasonably ascertain the methodology for estimating distance based on estimated signal strength indications of wireless transmissions exchanged between devices. While the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology, the claims read in light of the specification fail to disclose the algorithm for determining the estimated distance based on wireless transmissions exchanged between user devices in sufficient detail.
Claims 89-101 are further rejected as they depend from independent Claim 88.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art Analysis
A prior art search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time. The closes prior art found to date is Pub. No. US 2014/0371635 to Shinar et al.. Shinar et al. teaches two parties sleeping with sensors and respiratory therapy device. However, Shinar et al. does not teach received signal strength indications based on wireless transmissions between first and second user devices to estimate a distance between users device during a sleep session and determining distance satisfying a threshold corresponding to a same environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art teaches time intervals and active:
WO-2018050913-A1; WO-2020104465-A2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights