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 .
Claims 1 and 29 are currently amended. Claims 3, 5 -6, 8, 10, 12-14, 18-21, 23-28, 31, 33-34, 36, 38, 40-42, 46-49 and 51-55 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 22, 29-30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 43-45 and 50 are pending.
Examiner notes that the amended claims say claims 12-15 are cancelled followed by claim 15. Examiner is interpreting claim 15 as pending rather than cancelled. The claims also state that claims 40-43 are cancelled followed by claim 43. Examiner is interpreting claim 43 as pending rather than cancelled.
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 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 22, 29-30,32, 35, 37, 39, 43-45 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17 and 22 are drawn to a method for determining matches based on sleep information, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 29-30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 43-45 and 50 are drawn to a system for determining matches based on sleep information, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Examiner notes that the control system recited in claim 29 includes hardware, such as one or more processors, providing the necessary structure to qualify as a system claim.
Step 2A | Prong One
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17 and 22 (Group I) recite a method comprising:
storing, in a database (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), sleep information associated with a plurality of users, including sleep information associated with a first user and sleep information associated with a second user (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity);
generating, via a sensor a respiratory therapy device, sleep data, wherein sleep information associated with the first user is at least partially based on sleep data (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity);
delivering, via the respiratory therapy device, pressurized air to a user interface wearable by the first user during a sleep session (MPEP § 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP § 2106.05(h), generally linking);
receiving, via a control system from a first user device (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), sleep information associated with a first user;
comparing, by the control system (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), the sleep information associated with the first user to the sleep information associated with the plurality of users;
determining, by the control system (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it) based on the comparing, that sleep information associated with a second user corresponds to the sleep information associated with the first user;
generating, by the control system (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it) based on the sleep information associated with the second user and the sleep information associated with the first user, a notification including (i) at least some of the sleep information associated with the first user, (ii) at least some of the sleep information associated with the second user, and (iii) a match indicator indicating a correspondence between the sleep information associated with the first user and the sleep information associated with the second user;
and
causing transmission, by the control system (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), of the notification to one or more of the first user device and a second user device, wherein the second user device is associated with the second user (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it).
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 29 and 32 recite substantially the same as the abstract idea as found in Claim 1 (Group I), because the only difference between is they are directed towards different statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 22, 30, 35, 37, 39, 43-45 and 50 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 30 wherein the sleep information associated with the plurality of users includes one or more of a sleep diagnosis, a sleep schedule, a duration of sleep, restlessness, severity of sleep disorder, user device usage, use of a type of sleep enhancement device, and respiratory information, Claims 4 and 32 recite wherein the respiratory information includes one or more of use of a respiratory therapy system, a type of respiratory therapy device, a duration of respiratory therapy usage, a length of respiratory therapy usage, a sleep schedule, duration of sleep, medical conditions, an apnea hypopnea index, and sleep score, Claims 7 and 35 recite wherein the notification includes one or more of an indication of at least some of the sleep information associated with the first user and an indication of at least some of the sleep information associated with the second user, Claims 9 and 37 recite comparing, by the control system, personal information associated with the first user to personal information associated with the plurality of users; determining, by the control system based on the comparing, that personal information associated with the second user corresponds to the personal information associated with the first user; wherein the generating the notification is further based on the personal information associated with the first user corresponding to the personal information associated with the second user, and wherein the personal information associated with the plurality of users includes one or more of age, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, location, interests, hobbies, likes, dislikes, preferences and lifestyle choices, Claims 11 and 39 recite receiving, by the control system, an augmentation request to augment an image of the first user to include a user interface, wherein the augmentation request is received from one or more of the first user device and the second user device, Claims 15 and 43 recite receiving, by the control system from the first user device, a request to transmit a sleep- based icon; and causing transmission, by the control system, of the sleep-based icon to the second user device, Claims 16 and 44 recite wherein the notification includes a recommended activity for the first user and second user, Claims 17 and 45 recite wherein the recommended activity is based on (i) the sleep information associated with the first user, (ii) the sleep information associated with the second user, (iii) an exertion required for the recommended activity, (iv) a previous night's sleep for the first user, (v) a previous night's sleep for the second user, (vi) or any combination of(i) - (v), Claims 22 and 50 recite receiving, by the control system from the first user device, a message; and causing transmission, by the control system, of the message to one or more of the second user device and a respiratory therapy system associated with the second user, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 29.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Furthermore, Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 22, 29-30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 43-45 and 50 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a database, a control system, a first and second user device, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0060], [0093] and [0139-0141] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f);
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of generating sleep information associated with the first user, which amounts to mere data gathering and the recitation of storing data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g); and
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of delivering pressured air via a respiratory therapy device, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of respiratory therapy devices, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0060], [0093] and [0139-0141] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. a database, a control system, a first and second user device) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. storing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of sleep data on a database and/or electronic memory; and
Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989) – similarly, the current invention collects data while during a user’s sleep session to be used for the analysis.
The following State of the Art Publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements:
Delivering pressurized air via a respiratory therapy device e.g. see Han (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0295846 A1) in paragraph [0004] stating that the “use of a breathing apparatus upon respiratory impaired patients is well known…by allowing proper exchange of inhaled and exhaled gas while providing pressurized gasses to the patient's lungs so as to prevent lung collapse during breathing,” Davenport (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0125052 A1) in paragraphs [0085] and [0093] discuss respiratory therapy systems providing respiratory gas at a specified higher pressure relative to the ambient air temperature and corresponding sensors; and Anderson (AU 2022/203230 A1) page 1, lines 22-28 describing it is well-known to deliver pressurized air to a patient using CPAP therapy (the reference also discusses using sensors to obtain measurements).
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 22, 30, 35, 37, 39, 43-45 and 50 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims include the same additional elements previously included in the independent claims.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 22, 29-30,32, 35, 37, 39, 43-45 and 50 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Rejection based on 35 U.S.C § 101
Applicant asserts that “claims 1 and 29 are directed toward highly specialized systems, and methods that utilize such highly specialized systems, to generate sleep data and match users based on corresponding sleep data (Remarks, page 10).”
Specifically, Applicant asserts that “claims 1 and 29 have been amended to recite a respiratory therapy system comprising a respiratory therapy device and a sensor configured to generate sleep data for a user (Remarks, page 11).” The respiratory therapy device is not improved nor is its operation changed as a result of the claimed invention. The therapy device is simply used as intended, during which time, sleep data is collected, which is then used for the data analysis to find a match and generate a notification.
Applicant further argues that the “limitations tie the claimed system to a specific technological environment involving medical devices used for treating sleep disorders (Remarks, page 11). Examiner maintains that while the claim requires a medical device, it is generally linked to the rest of the claim limitations. The delivering of pressurized is not tied to any of the other limitations. It was well-known in the art to delivery pressurized air via a respiratory therapy device as indicated by the cited references of Han, Davenport and Anderson. The operation of the device does not change as a result of the claim. The medical device is not improved as a result of the claim. In other words, the inventive concept here is not the respiratory therapy device. The inventive concept of the claimed invention is using the data gathered during a user’s sleep session to match the user with another user and providing a notification.
The notification is not considered as an additional element as it is considered to be part of the abstract idea, and thus cannot be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant states that “the amended claim reflects an improvement to the technical field of sleep therapy systems (Remarks, page 12)” by “connecting users with similar sleep conditions, which can improve treatment adherence and outcomes (Remarks, page 13).” This is not a technical problem. The sleep devices themselves are not improved as a result of the claimed invention. The computing devices are also not improved as a result of the claimed invention. The improvement, if any, lies within the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant “respectfully submits that the combination of elements in the amended claims provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea (Remarks, page 13).” Examiner disagrees as the additional elements are either recited at an “apply it” level, recite insignificant extra-solution activity, or a merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular field.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter as they directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Rejection based on 35 U.S.C § 103
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view as the rejection has been withdrawn in response to the amendments. Specifically, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the limitation of “generating, by the control system based on the sleep information associated with the second user and the sleep information associated with the first user, a notification including (i) at least some of the sleep information associated with the first user, (ii) at least some of the sleep information associated with the second user, and (iii) a match indicator indicating a correspondence between the sleep information associated with the first user and the sleep information associated with the second user” alone or combination with the other limitations recited in the independent claims.
In addition to the previously cited references, the closest prior art of record further includes Choudhary (US 2014/0337451 A1) and Lawlor (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0108797 A1).
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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights