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 .
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) 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer readable medium would include a propagated signal and/or carrier wave.
Additional clarification is requested.
Claim(s) 9-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites:
A method, comprising:
identifying an electronic notification to be provided to a positive airway pressure device user engaged in a therapeutic treatment;
determining a set of user characteristics associated with the user;
identifying a target time to provide the electronic notification to the user by processing the set of user characteristics and the target time using a machine learning model to generate an interaction probability, wherein the interaction probability indicates a likelihood that the user will perform a specified action to interact with the electronic notification within a defined maximum length of time, relative to the target time; and
in response to determining that the interaction probability satisfies one or more criteria, transmitting the electronic notification over one or more communication networks to the user at the target time.
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) 10-16 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:
using a machine learning model;
in response to determining that the interaction probability satisfies one or more criteria, transmitting the electronic notification over one or more communication networks to the user at the target time.
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.
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) 17-28 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 9-16 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) 9-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (20230360754) in view of van Zanten (20230047226) and Jamjoom (20170316320).
Claim 9: Iyer discloses:
A method (Abstract illustrating a method), comprising:
identifying an electronic notification to be provided (page 10-11 paragraph 0079 illustrating generating an alert for a patient)
determining a set of user characteristics associated with the user (page 10-11 paragraph 0079 illustrating determining the user’s conditions and needs);
identifying a target time to provide the electronic notification to the user by processing the set of user characteristics and the target time using a machine learning model to generate an interaction probability (page 10-11 paragraph 0079 illustrating training an AI to provide the correct amount of interactions with the user to prevent oversaturation/alarm-fatigue),
in response to determining that the interaction probability satisfies one or more criteria, transmitting the electronic notification over one or more communication networks to the user at the target time (page 10-11 paragraph 0079 illustrating sending the alert when the user is likely to respond).
Iyer does not disclose:
to a positive airway pressure device user engaged in a therapeutic treatment;
wherein the interaction probability indicates a likelihood that the user will perform a specified action to interact with the electronic notification within a defined maximum length of time, relative to the target time.
van Zanten discloses:
to a positive airway pressure device user engaged in a therapeutic treatment (page 1 paragraph 0004 illustrating CPAP);
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 with the motivation of improving patient care by using known medical treatments (van Zanten; page 1 paragraph 0002).
Iyer and van Zanten do not disclose:
wherein the interaction probability indicates a likelihood that the user will perform a specified action to interact with the electronic notification within a defined maximum length of time, relative to the target time.
Jamjoom discloses:
wherein the interaction probability indicates a likelihood that the user will perform a specified action to interact with the electronic notification within a defined maximum length of time, relative to the target time (page 3 paragraph 0024 illustrating determining the likelihood the user will respond to an alert within a particular timeframe).
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 time periods of Jamjoom within the system of Iyer in view of van Zanten with the motivation of improving patient care by promoting user engagement to higher-quality alerts (Jamjoom; page 1 paragraph 0003).
Claim 10: Iyer further discloses:
wherein the electronic notification corresponds to communications related to ongoing therapeutic treatments (Abstract illustrating managing a plurality of therapeutics for the patient).
Claim 11: Iyer does not disclose:
wherein the ongoing therapeutic treatments comprise treatment with 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:
wherein the ongoing therapeutic treatments comprise treatment with 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 in view of van Zanten and Jamjoom with the motivation of improving patient care by using known medical treatments (van Zanten; page 1 paragraph 0002).
Claim 12: 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 13: Iyer in view of van Zanten do not disclose:
wherein identifying the target time comprises, for each respective alternative time of a plurality of alternative times, generating a respective probability that the user will open the electronic notification within the defined maximum length of time if it is sent at the respective alternative time.
Jamjoom discloses:
wherein identifying the target time comprises, for each respective alternative time of a plurality of alternative times, generating a respective probability that the user will open the electronic notification within the defined maximum length of time if it is sent at the respective alternative time (page 3 paragraph 0024 illustrating determining the likelihood the user will respond to an alert within a maximum timeframe or if the alert will be ignored).
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 time periods of Jamjoom within the system of Iyer in view of van Zanten and Jamjoom with the motivation of improving patient care by promoting user engagement to higher-quality alerts (Jamjoom; page 1 paragraph 0003).
Claim 14: Iyer in view of van Zanten do not disclose:
wherein identifying the target time further comprises selecting an alternative time, of the plurality of alternative times, having a highest probability.
Jamjoom discloses:
wherein identifying the target time further comprises selecting an alternative time, of the plurality of alternative times, having a highest probability (page 3 paragraph 0024 illustrating determining the likelihood the user will respond to an alert within a particular timeframe).
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 time periods of Jamjoom within the system of Iyer in view of van Zanten and Jamjoom with the motivation of improving patient care by promoting user engagement to higher-quality alerts (Jamjoom; page 1 paragraph 0003).
Claim 15: Iyer further discloses:
wherein the set of user characteristics comprise at least one of: an age of the user (page 8 paragraph 0063 illustrating age).
The remaining limitations are rendered optional by “at least one of” and therefore need not be disclosed by the applied art.
Claim 16: Iyer in view of van Zanten do not disclose:
further comprising:
determining whether the user opened the electronic notification within the defined maximum length of time from the identified target time; and
refining the machine learning model based on the determination.
JamJoom discloses:
determining whether the user opened the electronic notification within the defined maximum length of time from the identified target time (page 3 paragraph 0024 illustrating determining the user’s historical response time); and
refining the machine learning model based on the determination (page 3 paragraph 0024 illustrating learning the user’s behavior).
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 time periods of Jamjoom within the system of Iyer in view of van Zanten and Jamjoom with the motivation of improving patient care by promoting user engagement to higher-quality alerts (Jamjoom; page 1 paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 17, 18, 19 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 9, 13, 14, 16, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on 15 April 2026, Applicant makes numerous arguments. Examiner will address these arguments in the order presented.
On page 8 Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
While Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered, they are not considered persuasive because Applicant argues that the claims are not “similar” to those examples provided in the MPEP. Applicant further provides mere conclusory statement that the claims are not directed towards managing or organizing human activity without providing any reasoning.
Instead, the claims have been found to be directed towards this type of human activity because the provided examples are not exclusive, and the highlighted limitations have been found to be directed towards managing personal behaviors and/or relationships.
On page 9-10 Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards Mental Processes.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, they are not found persuasive because Applicant merely asserts that the highlighted limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind without any reason.
Instead, Examiner maintains that the highlighted limitations may be practically performed in the human mind.
On page 11 Applicant argues that the claims provide technical improvement.
As a preliminary matter, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments have been directed towards limitations that have been found to be directed towards an abstract idea. Even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. MPEP 2106.04(I)
The only additional elements are the generic machine learning and the step of receiving data. As recited, these limitations do not improve technology in any meaningful way because they have been recited generically.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 on page 13-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Based on the evidence presented above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights