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 .
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed August 20, 2025, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 15 have been amended. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 1-13 and 15 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant notes claim objection, pg. 1 of Remarks:
Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “compiling... a plurality of objective sleep scores and a plurality of objective sleep scores” where the phrase is repeated.
Discussion of Claim 6:
Applicant thanks the Examiner for noting this error. By way of this response, Applicant has amended 6 to replace one recitation of “objective sleep scores” with “subjective sleep scores.” Applicant submits that the amendment to claim 6 overcomes the Office Action’s objection to claim 6 and that the objection to claim 6 should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
Withdrawn based on the claim amendment.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112(b) Rejection, pg. 1 of Remarks:
Rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as allegedly failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Discussion of Claim 5:
While Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assertion, for reasons unrelated to patentability and in an effort to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended claim 5 herein. Specifically, Applicant has amended claim 5 to remove the recitation of scores being “high” or “low,” and instead recites the values as being higher or lower than other values. Applicant submits that the amendment to claim 5 overcomes the Office Action’s rejection of claim 5 and that this rejection to claim 5 should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
Withdrawn based on the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 2 of Remarks:
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Discussion of Claims 1-15:
The Office Action asserts that Applicant’s claims are directed toward an abstract idea. Specifically, the Office Action asserts that Applicant’s claims recite a method for organizing human activity that is not integrated into a practical application of the abstract idea, and that Applicant’s claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. While Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assertion, for reasons unrelated to patentability and in an effort to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims herein. Specifically, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite the automatic generation of commands to adjust parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device and the adjustment of such parameters of respiratory therapy on the respiratory therapy device.
Noted. However, the amendments are considered too high level to amount to a practical application or significantly more.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant’s claim 1, as originally filed, was directed to a method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claim 1, as amended, either 1) no longer recites an abstract idea, 2) integrates an abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea, or 3) recites significantly more than the abstract idea. First, the Office Action argues that Applicant’s claim 1 recites a mental process, stating that “[a] person can collect information, analyze the information, and provide a recommendation” in their mind. However, Applicant has amended claim | to recite the automatic generation of a command to adjust one or more parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device and the adjustment of such parameters of respiratory therapy. A person, in their mind, cannot automatically generate a command to adjust one or more parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device or cause the adjustment of such parameters of respiratory therapy. Accordingly, Applicant’s claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea. Applicant submits that the Office Action’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been overcome and should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
The claim elements are individually examined to determine if they recite any abstract steps. Some of the cited steps can be done in the mind of a person or with pen and paper.
The additional steps are claimed at a high level. Adjusting parameters of a therapy is not a particular treatment. It is also does not affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis. Causing a therapy device to adjust parameters of a therapy is not the same as controlling a device, and there is no guarantee a device is actually controlled.
Second, assuming arguendo that Applicant’s claim 1, as amended, recites an abstract idea, Applicant’s claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. As discussed previously, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite the automatic generation of a command to adjust one or more parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device and the adjustment of such parameters of respiratory Applicant’s claim 1 recites significantly more than the collection and analysis of information, and provisioning of a recommendation. For example, Applicant’s claim 1 now recites the automatic generation of a command to adjust one or more parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device and the adjustment of such parameters of respiratory therapy, all of which are practical applications of the abstract idea of the collection and analysis of information, and provisioning of a recommendation. Applicant submits that the Office Action’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been overcome and should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
There is no positive recitation of a particular treatment or device being physically controlled, just adjust one or more parameters of a therapy of a therapy.
Finally, assuming arguendo that Applicant’s claim 1, as amended, recites an abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea, Applicant’s claim 1 recites significantly more than the abstract idea. As previously discussed, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite the automatic generation of a command to adjust one or more parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device and the adjustment of such parameters of respiratory therapy. The automatic generation of commands and the adjustment of parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device are significantly more than the collection and analysis of data to provide a recommendation. Applicant submits that the Office Action’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been overcome and should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendment. Adjusting a parameter is very broad and is not the same as a providing a particular treatment or physically controlling a device, for example.
In sum, Applicant submits that, assuming arguendo that Applicant’s claims, as originally filed, recite an abstract idea, Applicant’s claims no longer recite an abstract idea or 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea and/or 2) recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant submits that the Office Action’s rejection of claims 1 — 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been overcome and should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 4 of Remarks:
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A method comprising:
receiving an objective sleep score associated with a user;
presenting, via a display device of a user device, a subjective sleep prompt;
receiving, via a user input device of the user device from the user, a subjective sleep score;
comparing, by a control system, the objective sleep score with subjective sleep score;
determining, by the control system based on the comparison of the objective sleep score and the subjective sleep score, that the subjective sleep score does not correspond to the objective sleep score;
presenting, via the display device of the user device, one or more additional prompts, wherein the one or more additional prompts are associated with sleep quality factors;
receiving, via the user input device of the user device from the user, responses to the one or more additional prompts;
determining, by the control system based on the responses to the one or more additional prompts, a sleep recommendation for the user;
presenting, via the display device of the user device, the sleep recommendation to the user;
determining, by the control system based on the responses to the one or more additional prompts, a modification for respiratory therapy for the user;
generating, by the control system automatically based on the modification for respiratory therapy for the user, a command to adjust one or more parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device; and
causing, by the control system via the command, the respiratory therapy device to adjust the one or more parameters of the respiratory therapy.
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 managing personal behavior. Presenting a subjective sleep prompt, receiving from the user a subjective sleep score, comparing the objective and subjective sleep score, determining the subjective sleep score does not correspond to the objective sleep score, presenting additional prompts, receiving from the user responses to the additional prompts, determining based on the responses a sleep recommendation, presenting the recommendation, and determining based on the responses a modification for respiratory therapy for the user involves managing personal behavior by prompting user for inputs (following rules or instructions) and making recommendations (teachings of how to improve sleep). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 is abstract. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In as much as the claim is receiving score and inputs, comparing objective and subjective scores, determining that the subjective score does not correspond to an objective score, receiving responses to additional prompts, determining and presenting a sleep recommendation, the claims is collecting data, analyzing the data and providing results, which falls under Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. A person can collect information, analyze the information, and provide a recommendation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite display device, user device, user input device, control system, respiratory therapy device (Claim 1). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The control system is recited at a high level of generality and includes processors (para. [0052] of the specification). Generating a command to adjust respiratory therapy and causing by the control system via the command the respiratory device to adjust one or more parameters of the respiratory therapy is recited at a high level of generality. Adjusting a parameter is not physically controlling a device and adjusting respiratory therapy is not providing a patient with a particular treatment for a particular disease. 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 1 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 computer 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0052] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. 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 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15 further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claim 1 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. Claim 6 recites control system and display device of the user device applied at a high level of generality. Claims 10 and 15 recite respiratory therapy device applied at a high level of generality. Claims 13 and 15 recite control system applied at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims 2-13 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-13 and 15 are not patent-eligible.
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 was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time. Based on the prior art, Pub. No. WO2021/214640 to Gill et al. is the closest prior art. Gill teaches sleep score and prompting users with respiratory therapy devices. However, Gill fails to teach or render obvious determining, by the control system based on the responses to the one or more additional prompts, a modification for respiratory therapy for the user and generating, by the control system automatically based on the modification for respiratory therapy for the user, a command to adjust one or more parameters of respiratory therapy on a respiratory therapy device, and causing, by the control system via the command, the respiratory therapy device to adjust the one or more parameters of the respiratory therapy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art teaches at least additional prompt.
US-20170209657-A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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