DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 11-13, 15-19, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Berka et al. (US 20100292545 A1, 2010-11-18) (hereinafter “Berka”).
Regarding claims 1-5, 11-13, 15-19, and 25-27, Berka teaches a system (and method of use) with one or more processors for improving a user's therapy compliance, the system comprising: a fatigue monitoring module configured to generate an assessment of a fatigue state of the user based on data from one or more data sources comprising one or more sensors (e.g., 22, Fig. 1; [0026]); and a user information module configured to provide the user with improvement strategies based on fatigue levels determined by the fatigue monitoring module, the improvement strategies directed to improving a respiratory therapy compliance level of the user in relation to a respiratory therapy (e.g., [0024]-[0026], [0084]-[0090]) (as recited in claims 1 and 15); wherein the user information module is configured to correlate a high fatigue index with a low therapy compliance (e.g., [0097]) (as recited in claims 2 and 16); wherein the fatigue levels comprise a fatigue index and wherein the user information module is configured to generate a suggestion of a less than optimal compliance with a prescribed continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy based on an increase in the fatigue index (e.g., [0097], [0130]-[0139]) (as recited in claims 3 and 17); wherein the user information module is configured to generate a recommendation to improve a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy compliance level of the user (e.g., [0097]) (as recited in claims 4 and 18); wherein the user information module is configured to generate a recommendation to improve or change a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy (e.g., [0097], [0130]-[0139])) (as recited in claims 5 and 19); wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more of a wearable activity sensor comprising an accelerometer, a heart rate sensor, a wearable photoplethysmographic sensor, an ear bud sensor, a non-contact movement sensor, and a radio- frequency Doppler movement sensor (e.g., [0024]-[0027]) (as recited in claims 11 and 25); wherein, based on the assessment of the fatigue state, the user information module is configured to generate an output for operation of a respiration program with a computing device for an airway therapy (e.g., [0175]) (as recited in claims 12 and 26); wherein the airway therapy is a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy (e.g., [0097], [0130]-[0139])) (as recited in claims 13 and 27).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-10, 14, 21-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berka in view of Dhumne et al. (US 20110118555 A1, 2011-05-19) (hereinafter “Dhumne”).
Regarding claims 7-10, 14, 21-24, and 28, as discussed above, Berka teaches a system (and method of use) with one or more processors for improving a user's therapy compliance, except comprising the various limitations recited in the claims at issue.
Dhumne teaches the one or more processors are configured to operate a guided respiration process (e.g., [0013]-[0014], [0104], [0116]) [D1], an audio or visual program executable on a personal computing device (e.g., [0063], [0086]) [D2], distributed computer or data access via networked servers (e.g., [0056],[0124]) [D3].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dhumne with the invention taught by Berka such that the invention further comprises wherein the one or more processors are configured to operate a guided respiration process for the user based on fatigue state indications to improve the therapy compliance [D1] (as recited in claims 7 and 21); wherein the guided respiration process comprises an audio program executable on a personal computing device [D1]-[D2] (as recited in claims 8 and 22); wherein the system comprises a light or display device configured for paced illumination in a breathing exercise to decrease a breathing rate [D1]-[D2] (as recited in claims 9 and 23); wherein the fatigue monitoring module is implemented at a remote server connected to the one or more data sources over a network [D3] (as recited in claims 10 and 24); wherein the respiration program comprises guided respiration [D1]-[D2] (as recited in claims 14 and 28) in order to improve the usability and efficacy of the treatment.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berka in view of Fu et al. (US 20120138058 A1, 2012-06-07) (hereinafter “Fu”).
Regarding claims 6 and 30, as discussed above, Berka teaches a system (and method of use) with one or more processors for improving a user's therapy compliance, except a motor-driven blower.
Fu teaches a motor-driven blower (10, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fu with the invention taught by Berka such that the invention further comprises wherein the one or more sensors comprises a sensor integrated with a respiratory pressure therapy device comprising a motor-driven blower (as recited in claims 6 and 20) in order to improve the efficacy of the treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights