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 .
Reply to Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026
This is a Final office action in response to communications filed on May 21,
2026. Applicant amended claims 1-2, 6, 8, 13-14, 18, and 20 and cancelled claims 7 and 19. Examiner withdraws the objections to claims 1, 4, 8, 13-14, 16, and 20. Examiner withdraws the double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20 remain pending in the application.
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.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20. Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are drawn to a method for determining how using a respiratory therapy system impacts sleep sessions of a user (i.e., a process). Claims 13-18, and 20 are drawn to a system for determining how using a respiratory therapy system impacts sleep sessions of a user (i.e., a manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining how using a respiratory therapy system impacts sleep sessions of a user, the method comprising: receiving, by a control system that includes one or more processors, first activity information corresponding to actions of the user occurring prior to a use of the respiratory therapy system by the user, the first activity information including: (i) activity information associated with use of a mobile device by the user prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system;
providing, by the control system using the respiratory therapy system, pressurized air to the user during a sleep session of the user;
receiving, by the control system, second activity information corresponding to actions of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, the second activity information including: (i) activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user after the use of the respiratory therapy system, and (ii) respiratory information generated by the respiratory therapy system during the sleep session of the user when using the respiratory therapy system;
determining, by the control system, timeline information for the sleep session of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, the timeline information determined using the respiratory information;
and outputting a metric indicating an improvement to a quality of sleep experienced by the user during the sleep session due to the respiratory therapy system, based on the timeline information.
The underlined steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can obtain information from a user before and after the use of a respiratory therapy system and a human can obtain information generated by a respiratory therapy system during a sleep session. The step of “providing, by the control system using the respiratory therapy system, pressurized air to the user during a sleep session of the user” amounts to a mechanism for a human to generate data that can assist in determining an improvement in sleep quality. The claimed invention discloses “some users will elect not to use the respiratory therapy system or discontinue use of the respiratory therapy system absent a demonstration of the severity of their symptoms when respiratory therapy treatment is not used or encouragement or affirmation that the respiratory therapy system is improving their sleep quality and reducing the symptoms of these disorders” [0004].
Independent claim 13 describes steps that are similar to steps of claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 are directed towards mini-tasks (obtaining timeline information, correlating timeline information with activity information, and correlating changes in sleep schedule with improved sleep quality, etc.) for a method that determines how using a respiratory therapy system impacts sleep sessions of a user. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a mobile device, a memory, and processors (independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Similarly, the limitations of a mobile device, a memory, and processors (independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable under US 20240145085 A1 (“Javed”).
In regards to claim 1, Javed discloses
A method for determining how using a respiratory therapy system impacts ([0023], “the system … includes a respiratory therapy system”) sleep sessions of a user, the method comprising ([0111], “there are one or more additional sleep sessions between the first sleep session and the second sleep session”): receiving, by a control system that includes one or more processors ([0024], “The control system … includes one or more processors”), first activity information corresponding to actions of the user occurring prior to a use of the respiratory therapy system by the user, the first activity information including ([0004], “The method also includes receiving demographic information associated with the user”): (i) activity information associated with use of a mobile device by the user prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0065], “The user device … can be … a mobile device”);
providing, by the control system ([0023], “The system … includes a control system”) using the respiratory therapy system, pressurized air to the user during a sleep session of the user ([0029], “The respiratory therapy device … is … used to generate pressurized air that is delivered to a user”);
receiving, by the control system ([0023], “The system … includes a control system”), second activity information corresponding to actions of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, the second activity information including: (i) activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user after the use of the respiratory therapy system, and (ii) respiratory information generated by the respiratory therapy system during the sleep session of the user when using the respiratory therapy system ([0101], “The user can be prompted to provide the feedback at any time subsequent to the first sleep session … e.g., 30 seconds after the first sleep session, 1 minute after the first sleep session, 5 minutes after the first sleep session, 15 minutes after the first sleep session, 30 minutes after the first sleep session, 1 hour after the first sleep session”);
determining, by the control system, timeline information for the sleep session of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0009], “FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary timeline for a sleep session”), the timeline information determined using the respiratory information ([0028]. “The respiratory therapy system … can include … a display device ([0034], “the display device … can provide information regarding … the respiratory therapy device”)”);
and outputting a metric indicating an improvement to a quality of sleep experienced by the user during the sleep session due to the respiratory therapy system, based on the timeline information ([0116], “feedback can include an indication of the user's comfort in using the recommended therapy (e.g., comfortable, uncomfortable, indifferent, etc.), a subjective indication of the benefit in using the recommended therapy (e.g., improvement in sleep quality, worse sleep quality, no difference in sleep quality, etc.), an indication of a likelihood of that the user will continue to use the recommended therapy for subsequent sleep sessions (e.g., likely, unlikely, not sure, etc.)”).
In regards to claim 2, Javed discloses
wherein the timeline information includes ([0009], “FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary timeline for a sleep session”) (i) a go-to-sleep time for the sleep session of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0072], “a sleep session can be defined as a period of time that begins on a first date … at a first time … when the user first enters a bed with the intention of going to sleep”) (ii) a wake-up time for the sleep session of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) ([0076], “The timeline … includes … a go-to-sleep time … a wake-up time”).
In regards to claim 3, Javed discloses
further comprising correlating the determined timeline information for the sleep session occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system with the activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0085], “Referring to FIG. 4, an exemplary hypnogram … corresponding to the timeline … the hypnogram … includes a sleep-wake signal …, a wakefulness stage” Examiner notes that correspond is similar to correlate in that they both represent a relationship between variables.).
In regards to claim 4, Javed discloses
further comprising using the second activity information and ([0101], “The user can be prompted to provide the feedback at any time”) the first activity information to determine prior timeline information for a sleep session of the user occurring prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system, wherein the prior timeline information includes ([0004], “The method .. includes receiving demographic information associated with the user”) (i) a go-to-sleep time for the sleep session of the user occurring prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0072], “a sleep session can be defined as a period of time that begins on a first date … at a first time … when the user first enters a bed with the intention of going to sleep”) (ii) a wake-up time for the sleep session of the user occurring prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) ([0076], “The timeline … includes … a go-to-sleep time … a wake-up time”).
In regards to claim 5, Javed discloses
further comprising: comparing the timeline information for the sleep session of the user ([0076], “The timeline … includes an enter bed time …, a go-to-sleep time …, an initial sleep time …, a first micro-awakening …, a second micro-awakening …, an awakening …, a wake-up time …, and a rising time”) occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, with ([0080], “The sleep session is generally defined as ending once the user … removes the user interface …, turns off the respiratory therapy device …, and gets out of bed”) the prior timeline information for the sleep session of the user occurring prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0080], “the rising time … is the time when the user last leaves the bed without returning to the bed until a next sleep session”);
and identifying changes in a sleep schedule of the user as a result of using the respiratory therapy system ([0116], “the user does not use any therapy during the first sleep session and uses the ... recommended therapy ... during the second sleep session ... the feedback associated with second sleep session ... can differ from the feedback associated with the first sleep session”).
In regards to claim 6, Javed discloses
further comprising correlating the identified changes in the sleep schedule of the user with the improvement to the quality of sleep experienced by the user during the sleep session occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0100], “feedback can include information indicative of … quality of sleep”).
In regards to claim 8, Javed discloses
wherein outputting the metric includes pushing the metric to ([0107], “The machine learning algorithm can ... output the recommended therapy”) the mobile device of the user ([0065], “The user device ... can be ... a mobile device”).
In regards to claim 9, Javed discloses
wherein correlating the determined timeline information for the sleep session occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system with the activity information associated with use of ([0085], “Referring to FIG. 4, an exemplary hypnogram … corresponding to the timeline … the hypnogram … includes a sleep-wake signal …, a wakefulness stage” Examiner notes that correspond is similar to correlate in that they both represent a relationship between variables.) the mobile device by the user ([0065], “The user device … can be … a mobile device”) after the use of the respiratory therapy system, includes: correlating timing data in the respiratory information with timing data in the activity information associated with use of the mobile device after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0101], “The user can be prompted to provide the feedback at any time subsequent to the first sleep session”);
identifying a prolonged gap in the activity information associated with use of the mobile device after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0101], “The user can be prompted to provide the feedback at any time subsequent to the first sleep session … e.g., … 1 hour after the first sleep session” Examiner notes that 1 hour after the first sleep session may represent a 1 hour prolonged gap.);
determining a portion of the respiratory information having timing data that is correlated with ([0085], “an exemplary hypnogram … corresponding to the timeline … the hypnogram … includes a sleep-wake signal … a wakefulness stage …, a REM stage …, a light sleep …, and a deep sleep …”) a portion of the timing data in the activity information that corresponds to ([0101], “The user can be prompted to provide the feedback at any time”) the prolonged gap ([0101], “The user can be prompted to provide the feedback at any time subsequent to the first sleep session … e.g., … 1 hour after the first sleep session” Examiner notes that 1 hour after the first sleep session may represent a 1 hour prolonged gap.”);
and establishing the determined portion of the respiratory information as extending between the go-to-sleep time and ([0072], “a sleep session can be defined as a period of time that begins on a first date … at a first time … when the user first enters a bed with the intention of going to sleep”) the wake-up time for the sleep session ([0076], “The timeline … includes … a wake-up time”).
In regards to claim 10, Javed discloses
wherein the activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user includes types of applications ([0066], “The activity tracker … is … used … in generating physiological data for determining an activity measurement associated with the user” Examiner notes that an activity tracker is an application.) the user spent time interacting with, and an amount of time the user spent interacting with each type of application ([0065], “The input interface can be ... a touchscreen ... or any sensor system configured to sense inputs made by a human user interacting with the user device”).
In regards to claim 11, Javed discloses
wherein the activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user includes geolocation information corresponding to the mobile device ([0026], “the memory device … stores … a geographic location of the user”).
In regards to claim 12, Javed discloses
wherein the activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user includes data received from an accelerometer in the mobile device ([0046], “The motion sensor … can include … accelerometers”).
In regards to claim 13, Javed discloses
A system comprising: a respiratory therapy system ([0023], “the system … includes a respiratory therapy system”) a memory storing machine-readable instructions ([0025], “The memory device … stores machine-readable instructions”);
and a control system comprising one or more processors configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to ([0025], “The memory device … stores machine-readable instructions that are executable by the processor … of the control system”): receive first activity information corresponding to actions of a user occurring prior to a use of the respiratory therapy system by the user, the first activity information including ([0004], “The method also includes receiving demographic information associated with the user”): activity information associated with use of a mobile device by the user prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0065], “The user device … can be … a mobile device”);
provide, using the respiratory therapy system, pressurized air to the user during a sleep session of the user ([0029], “The respiratory therapy device … is … used to generate pressurized air that is delivered to a user”);
receive second activity information corresponding to actions of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, the second activity information including: activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user after the use of the respiratory therapy system, and respiratory information generated by the respiratory therapy system during a sleep session of the user when using the respiratory therapy system ([0101], “The user can be prompted to provide the feedback at any time subsequent to the first sleep session … e.g., 30 seconds after the first sleep session, 1 minute after the first sleep session, 5 minutes after the first sleep session, 15 minutes after the first sleep session, 30 minutes after the first sleep session, 1 hour after the first sleep session”);
determine timeline information for the sleep session of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0009], “FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary timeline for a sleep session”), the timeline information determined using the respiratory information ([0028]. “The respiratory therapy system … can include … a display device ([0034], “the display device … can provide information regarding … the respiratory therapy device”)”);
and output a metric indicating an improvement to a quality of sleep experienced by the user during the sleep session due to the respiratory therapy system, based on the timeline information ([0116], “feedback can include an indication of the user's comfort in using the recommended therapy (e.g., comfortable, uncomfortable, indifferent, etc.), a subjective indication of the benefit in using the recommended therapy (e.g., improvement in sleep quality, worse sleep quality, no difference in sleep quality, etc.), an indication of a likelihood of that the user will continue to use the recommended therapy for subsequent sleep sessions (e.g., likely, unlikely, not sure, etc.)”)..
In regards to claim 14, Javed discloses
wherein the timeline information includes ([0009], “FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary timeline for a sleep session”) (i) a go-to-sleep time for the sleep session of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0072], “a sleep session can be defined as a period of time that begins on a first date … at a first time … when the user first enters a bed with the intention of going to sleep”) (ii) a wake-up time for the sleep session of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) ([0076], “The timeline … includes … a go-to-sleep time … a wake-up time”).
In regards to claim 15, Javed discloses
wherein the control system is further configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to ([0025], “The memory device … stores machine-readable instructions that are executable by the processor … of the control system”):
correlate the determined timeline information for the sleep session occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system with the activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0085], “Referring to FIG. 4, an exemplary hypnogram … corresponding to the timeline … the hypnogram … includes a sleep-wake signal …, a wakefulness stage” Examiner notes that correspond is similar to correlate in that they both represent a relationship between variables.).
In regards to claim 16, Javed discloses
wherein the control system is further configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to ([0025], “The memory device … stores machine-readable instructions that are executable by the processor … of the control system”):
use the second activity information and ([0101], “The user can be prompted to provide the feedback at any time”) the first activity information to determine prior timeline information for a sleep session of the user occurring prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system, wherein the prior timeline information includes ([0004], “The method .. includes receiving demographic information associated with the user”) (i) a go-to-sleep time for the sleep session of the user occurring prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0072], “a sleep session can be defined as a period of time that begins on a first date … at a first time … when the user first enters a bed with the intention of going to sleep”) (ii) a wake-up time for the sleep session of the user occurring prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) ([0076], “The timeline … includes … a go-to-sleep time … a wake-up time”).
In regards to claim 17, Javed discloses
wherein the control system is further configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to ([0025], “The memory device … stores machine-readable instructions that are executable by the processor … of the control system”):
compare the timeline information for the sleep session of the user ([0076], “The timeline … includes an enter bed time …, a go-to-sleep time …, an initial sleep time …, a first micro-awakening …, a second micro-awakening …, an awakening …, a wake-up time …, and a rising time”) occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, with ([0080], “The sleep session is generally defined as ending once the user … removes the user interface …, turns off the respiratory therapy device …, and gets out of bed”) the prior timeline information for the sleep session of the user occurring prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0080], “the rising time … is the time when the user last leaves the bed without returning to the bed until a next sleep session”);
and identify changes in a sleep schedule of the user as a result of using the respiratory therapy system ([0116], “the user does not use any therapy during the first sleep session and uses the ... recommended therapy ... during the second sleep session ... the feedback associated with second sleep session ... can differ from the feedback associated with the first sleep session”).
In regards to claim 18, Javed discloses
wherein the control system is further configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to ([0025], “The memory device … stores machine-readable instructions that are executable by the processor … of the control system”):
correlate the identified changes in the sleep schedule of the user with the improvement to the quality of sleep experienced by the user during the sleep session occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system ([0100], “feedback can include information indicative of … quality of sleep”).
In regards to claim 20, Javed discloses
wherein outputting the metric includes pushing the metric to ([0107], “The machine learning algorithm can ... output the recommended therapy”) the mobile device of the user ([0065], “The user device ... can be ... a mobile device”).
Response to Remarks
Applicant's submissions filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered. Claims
1-6, 8-18, and 20 remain pending in this application. Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant submits that “independent claims 1 and 13, as amended, do not recite an abstract idea” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 9, paragraph 2), “A human mind cannot cause a respiratory therapy system to physically deliver pressurized air to a user's airways.” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 9, paragraph 3), “the amended claims, considered as a whole, do not recite a mental process or a method of organizing human activity” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 10, paragraph 1), “the amended claims recite a particular treatment for a medical condition” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 10, paragraph 3), “the amended claims are tied to a particular machine that is integral to the claim” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 10, paragraph 4), “the amended claims recite an improvement to technology in the technical field of respiratory therapy” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 11, paragraph 1), and “the ordered combination of the amended claim elements imposes meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 11, paragraph 2). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 1, Applicant cites a method for determining how using a respiratory therapy system impacts sleep sessions of a user, the method comprising: receiving, by a control system that includes one or more processors, first activity information corresponding to actions of the user occurring prior to a use of the respiratory therapy system by the user, the first activity information including: (i) activity information associated with use of a mobile device by the user prior to the use of the respiratory therapy system; providing, by the control system using the respiratory therapy system, pressurized air to the user during a sleep session of the user; receiving, by the control system, second activity information corresponding to actions of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, the second activity information including: (i) activity information associated with use of the mobile device by the user after the use of the respiratory therapy system, and (ii) respiratory information generated by the respiratory therapy system during the sleep session of the user when using the respiratory therapy system; determining, by the control system, timeline information for the sleep session of the user occurring after the use of the respiratory therapy system, the timeline information determined using the respiratory information; and outputting a metric indicating an improvement to a quality of sleep experienced by the user during the sleep session due to the respiratory therapy system, based on the timeline information.
The steps primarily amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can obtain information from a user before and after the use of a respiratory therapy system and a human can obtain information generated by a respiratory therapy system during a sleep session. However, the step of “providing, by the control system using the respiratory therapy system, pressurized air to the user during a sleep session of the user” is differentiated from the aforementioned steps because this step includes a mechanism for a human to generate data that can assist in determining an improvement in sleep quality. Independent claim 13 describes steps that are parallel to steps of claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 are directed towards mini-tasks (obtaining timeline information, correlating timeline information with activity information, and correlating changes in sleep schedule with improved sleep quality, etc.) for a method that determines how using a respiratory therapy system impacts sleep sessions of a user. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Examiner makes an evaluation as to whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a mobile device, a memory, and processors (independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Similarly, the limitations of a mobile device, a memory, and processors (independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner analyzed whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
The identified additional elements in independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102, Applicant submits that “The Office Action does not identify whether the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2). Regardless, Javed is not prior art under either 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 12, paragraph 2), “the instant application has an effective filing date of September 30, 2022. Javed was published on May 2, 2024, which is later than the effective filing date of the instant application. Thus, Javed is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).”, (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 12, paragraph 4), and “Javed is a publication of an application that is a national stage entry of PCT/US2021/047975. PCT/US2021/047975 was published as W02022/047172 Al (‘Javed PCT’) on March 3, 2022.” (See Response to Office Action Mailed March 9, 2026, Remarks, page 12, paragraph 5). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. The application filing date of Javed was August 27, 2021, which is more than one year before the instant application’s effective filing date of September 30, 2022. Therefore, Javed is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102, and the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20, as anticipated under Javed, are maintained.
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 Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is (571)272-
4252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm
ET. 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at
(571) 272-7147. 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. 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.
LISA H ANTOINE
Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights