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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for priority to the following application(s):
* PCT/US2023/069293 filed on 28 June 2023
* 63367423 filed on 30 June 2022
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on the following date(s) is/are entered and considered by Examiner:
* 10 March 2025
* 27 December 2024
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
accessing a plurality of notification records;
determining, for at least a first notification record of the plurality of notification records:
a first time when a notification was provided to a user;
a second time when the notification was opened by the user, and
a set of user characteristics associated with the user; and
training a machine learning model, based on the plurality of notification records, to predict interaction probability of future notifications.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because determining data from a record and predicting future interaction are traditionally performed by human beings, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer recited with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the determining and predicting steps may be performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 2-8 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
accessing a plurality of notification records;
training a machine learning model, based on the plurality of notification records.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
The training of a machine learning model amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
The step of receiving records merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 3 reciting a machine learning model, additional limitation(s) which amount(s) to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the step of receiving records, this limitation amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 9-20 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1-8 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iyer (20230360754).
Claim 1: Iyer discloses:
A method (Abstract illustrating a method), comprising:
accessing a plurality of notification records (page 8 paragraph 0060 illustrating retrieving the user’s recorded interactions);
determining, for at least a first notification record of the plurality of notification records:
a first time when a notification was provided to a user (page 10-11 paragraph 0079 illustrating the interaction schedule);
a second time when the notification was opened by the user (page 10-11 paragraph 0079 illustrating determining the response of the user), and
a set of user characteristics associated with the user (page 10-11 paragraph 0079 illustrating determining the user’s conditions and needs); and
training a machine learning model, based on the plurality of notification records, to predict interaction probability of future notifications (page 10-11 paragraph 0079 illustrating training an AI to provide the correct amount of interactions with the user to prevent oversaturation/alarm-fatigue).
Claim 5: Iyer discloses:
The method of Claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Iyer further discloses:
wherein the plurality of notification records correspond to communications related to ongoing therapeutic treatments (Abstract illustrating managing a plurality of therapeutics for the patient).
Claim 7: Iyer discloses:
The method of Claim 5, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Iyer further discloses:
wherein the communications comprise coaching content to improve the ongoing therapeutic treatments (page 6 paragraph 0046 illustrating tutorials and educational contents [considered to be forms of “coaching”]).
Claim(s) 17 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 1 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Rosinko (20220208370).
Claim 2: Iyer discloses:
The method of Claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Iyer further discloses:
wherein training the machine learning model (as discussed above and incorporated herein) further comprises
Iyer does not disclose:
determining whether the second time is within a defined maximum length of time from the first time.
Rosinko discloses:
determining whether the second time is within a defined maximum length of time from the first time (page 26 paragraph 0262 illustrating determining if the user has interacted with the medical device within a set period of time).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the timeout period of Rosinko within the system of Iyer with the motivation of conserving battery life if the user does not respond adequately (Rosinko; page 26 paragraph 0261).
Claim 3: Iyer in view of Rosinko disclose:
The method of Claim 2, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Iyer further discloses:
wherein training the machine learning model to predict interaction probability comprises training the machine learning model to predict whether a future notification will be opened
Iyer does not disclose:
within the defined maximum length of time.
Rosinko discloses:
within the defined maximum length of time (page 26 paragraph 0262 illustrating determining if the user has interacted with the medical device within a set period of time).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the timeout period of Rosinko within the system of Iyer in view of Rosinko with the motivation of improving patient care by determining if the user does not respond adequately (Rosinko; page 26 paragraph 0261).
Claim 4: Iyer in view of Rosinko disclose:
The method of Claim 3, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Iyer further discloses:
wherein the time when the future notification is provided corresponds to an hour of day (page 5-6 paragraph 0045 illustrating time of day [considered to comprise hour]).
Claim(s) 18-20 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 2-4 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 6, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of van Zanten (20230047226).
Claim 6: Iyer discloses:
The method of Claim 5, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Iyer further discloses:
wherein the ongoing therapeutic treatments (as discussed above and incorporated herein) comprise
Iyer does not disclose:
at least one of (i) a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device, (ii) a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device, or (iii) an automatic positive airway pressure (APAP) device.
Van Zanten discloses:
at least one of (i) a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device (page 1 paragraph 0004 illustrating CPAP), (ii) a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) device (page 1 paragraph 0004 illustrating BiPAP), or (iii) an automatic positive airway pressure (APAP) device (page 3 paragraph 0022 illustrating APAP).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the PAP treatments of van Zanten within the system of Iyer in view of Rosinko with the motivation of improving patient care by using known medical treatments (van Zanten; page 1 paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 12 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 6, 5, 6, 7 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of case law.
Claim 8: Iyer discloses:
The method of Claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Iyer further discloses:
wherein the set of user characteristics comprise:
an age of the user (page 8 paragraph 0063 illustrating age).
Iyer does not disclose the remaining limitations; however, these limitations appear to merely describe the nature of the information that constitutes the type of data stored by the computer. Such mere descriptions of data are not entitled to patentable weight unless the information functionally affects, or otherwise alters, the manner in which the claimed method is performed. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Here, the types of data as recited does not affect nor in any way alter the manner in which the claimed method is performed.
As such, the claimed limitations constitute non-functional descriptive material that may not be relied on to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).
Claim(s) 13-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of van Zanten as applied to parent claim 9 above, and further in view of Rosinko.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 3 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of van Zanten as applied to parent claim 9 above, and further in view of case law.
Claim(s) 15 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 8 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kayyali (7942824) discloses a medical treatment device (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Bunker (10507167) discloses generating a medication notice based on user behavior (Abstract) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
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, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. 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.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685 /KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685