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 .
Application Status
This is the first non-final action on the merits. Claims 1-19 as originally filed on August 20, 2025 are currently pending and considered below.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 recite a method for evaluating a missed notification, contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification and adjusting a timer, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claims 13-19 recite a method for detecting triggering events and providing a notification to the user, which is within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they "recite" a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claims. An "abstract idea" judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites: A method comprising:
determining an event of a therapeutic protocol;
detecting a triggering event for generating a notification associated with the event of the therapeutic protocol;
providing the notification to a user to assist in treatment of a medical condition in response to the detected triggering event associated with the event of the therapeutic protocol;
determining whether a response to the notification is received;
on a condition that the response to the notification is received, performing management of the treatment of the medical condition;
on a condition that the response to the notification fails to be received, contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification for the event of the therapeutic protocol based on contextual information that indicates an inability of the user to respond to the notification; and
adjusting a timer corresponding to the notification of the event of the therapeutic protocol based on the contextual information.
Specifically, independent claim 13 recites: A method comprising:
determining an event of a therapeutic protocol;
detecting at least one triggering event for generating a notification associated with the event of the therapeutic protocol;
determining that the at least one triggering event exceeds a notification threshold indicating a level of confidence that a user will receive a notification; and
in response to the at least one triggering event exceeding the notification threshold, providing the notification to the user to assist in treatment of a medical condition.
The underlined limitations constitute methods of organizing human activity and concepts performed in the human mind. The claims recite the steps of determining an event of a therapeutic protocol, providing the notification to a user, and performing management of the treatment for the medical condition (e.g. the human activity of scheduling, reminding a patient to adhere to a medical protocol and adjusting a schedule based on a person’s availability). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Additionally, the claim encompasses a mental process of determining whether a response to the notification was received, contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification for the event of the therapeutic protocol, adjusting a timer corresponding to the notification of the event of the therapeutic protocol and determining that the at least one triggering event exceeds a notification threshold. The identified abstract idea, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Any limitations not identified above as part of methods of organizing human activity or mental process, are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed further in detail below. Accordingly, claims 1 and 13 recite at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claim 2 describes the management of the treatment of the diabetic condition. Claim 3 describes the contextual information. Claim 4 describes a triggering event detection timeframe. Claims 5 and 7 describe detecting the triggering event by parsing keywords. Claim 6 describes adjusting the timer. Claim 8 describes the insulin titration protocol. Claim 9 describes measuring fasting blood glucose against a targeted range. Claim 10 describes determining an optimal dose of insulin to achieve a targeted range. Claims 11 describes types of triggering events. Claim 12 describes types of contextual information. Claim 14 describes adjusting the threshold up or down based on detected triggers. Claim 15 describes predetermined triggering events. Claim 16 describes additional triggering events. Claims 17 and 18 describe assigning weights to a plurality of triggering events. Claim 19 describes the response to the notification. Claims 3, 7, 10 and 11 partially narrow the abstract idea as described above, and also introduce additional element(s) which will be discussed in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed toward fundamentally the same abstract ideas as independent claims 1 and 18, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, claims 1-19 as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 13 do not recite any additional elements.
The dependent claims 3, 7, 10 and 11 recite additional element(s) beyond those already recited in the independent claims that implement the identified abstract idea. Claims 3, 7, 10 and 11 recite a mobile device or device. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because, as stated above, they represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., merely invoking the computer structure as a tool used to execute the limitations).
Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When viewed as a whole, claims 1-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite processes that are abstract and simply implementing the process on a computer(s) is not enough to qualify as "significantly more." Claims 1 and 13 do not recite any additional elements.
The dependent claims 3, 7, 10 and 11 recite additional element(s) beyond those already recited in the independent claims that implement the identified abstract idea. Claims 3, 7, 10 and 11 recite a mobile device or device. However, these functions are not deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., merely invoking the computer structure as a tool used to execute the limitations).
Therefore, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havas (US 2018/0046833 A1) in further view of Horvitz (US 2009/0099992 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Havas teaches: A method comprising:
determining an event of a therapeutic protocol; (the “system is configured to provide scheduling, reminder and adherence information about one or more schedules for taking a medication”, e.g. see [0128]; “a patient specific schedule for when the medicine…is to be taken (1 pill/4 hours; 2 pills every 6 hours; 1 pill daily or similar information)”, e.g. see [0131])
detecting a triggering event for generating a notification associated with the event of the therapeutic protocol; (“Step 78 determines whether the current time is greater than the calculated reminder time for the event scheduled…If the current time is greater than the calculated reminder time for the event (step 78 is YES) then a reminder is needed (step 82).”, e.g. see [0104]-[0105])
providing the notification to a user to assist in treatment of a medical condition in response to the detected triggering event associated with the event of the therapeutic protocol; (the system generates “an audible, a visual and/or a physical (i.e., vibrate) signal or provide other reminder notifications (phone, smart phone update, SMS etc.) to alert the user” to take their medication to treat a medical problem, e.g. see [0128], [0005])
determining whether a response to the notification is received; (tracking whether the user responds to the medication reminder by requiring the user to scan an RFID or NFC tag attached to the medicine container, “Each time the patent picks up the container to take a pill, the container is passed within range of a reader in such a way to permit detection of the element 14…The reader will record the read time and date corresponding to when the activity tag 10 was read”, e.g. see [0130])
on a condition that the response to the notification is received, performing management of the treatment of the medical condition; (if the tag is detected in accordance with the schedule, the system logs the event and updates the patient’s adherence record, managing the treatment; determining “perfect adherence to the scheduled performance” and displaying an icon indicating that a “scheduled activity is completed” when the “machine-readable element” is detected, e.g. see [0017], [0015], [0148])
on a condition that the response to the notification fails to be received […]; (determining “a scheduled activity is…missed” when “an activity associated with that machine readable element is not detected” beyond the scheduled time, e.g. see [0015])
Havas does not teach:
contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification for the event based on contextual information that indicates an inability of the user to respond to the notification; and
adjusting a timer corresponding to the notification of the event based on the contextual information.
However, Horvitz in the analogous art of the management and delivery of electronic alerts and notifications to users (e.g. see [0030]) teaches:
contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification for the event based on contextual information that indicates an inability of the user to respond to the notification; and (when delivering notifications, the system evaluates “contextual information” to determine the user’s “state of attention”, e.g. see [0115], [0117]; using “perceptual sensors including GPS, 802.11 signal strength, accelerometers, infrared proximity detectors, and touch sensors” and a “user's appointment status encoded on a user's digital calendar” to “determine that a user is too busy to receive an alert”, e.g. see [0032], [0030], [0041]; contextualizing an inability to respond by detecting that the user is “currently involved in strenuous activity” or in “uninterruptible meetings”, e.g. see [0039], [0088])
adjusting a timer corresponding to the notification of the event based on the contextual information. (applying “Bounded-deferral policies” that “define a deadline for making a user aware of a message”, e.g. see [0031]; adjusting the timing of the notification by establishing a “deferral period” and “delay[ing] delivery of the message based upon detected activities or attentional state of the user”, e.g. see [0039]; holding the message in a queue and waiting for a “free state” to appear before delivering the alert, e.g. see [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas to include contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification for the event based on contextual information that indicates an inability of the user to respond to the notification and adjusting a timer corresponding to the notification of the event based on the contextual information as taught by Horvitz, for the purposes of “autonomously determin[ing] a suitable time for interruption within an allotted period” (Horvitz [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas does not teach:
wherein the contextual information includes calendar information or location information associated with the mobile device, and wherein the contextualizing the failure to respond is based on the calendar information or the location information associated with a mobile device
However, Horvitz in the analogous art teaches:
wherein the contextual information includes calendar information or location information associated with the mobile device, and wherein the contextualizing the failure to respond is based on the calendar information or the location information associated with a mobile device (evaluating “GPS, 802.11 signal strength” and a “user's appointment status encoded on a user's digital calendar”, e.g. see [0032], [0030]; analyzing this information to deduce the user’s availability, holding alerts when the calendar indicates an “uninterruptible meeting” or location/motion implies the user is driving, e.g. see [0088], [0073])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas to include the contextual information includes calendar information or location information associated with the mobile device, and wherein the contextualizing the failure to respond is based on the calendar information or the location information associated with a mobile device as taught by Horvitz, for the purposes of “autonomously determin[ing] a suitable time for interruption within an allotted period” (Horvitz [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas does not teach:
activating a triggering event detection timeframe associated with the event, wherein the triggering event is detected within the triggering event detection timeframe
However, Horvitz in the analogous art teaches:
activating a triggering event detection timeframe associated with the event, wherein the triggering event is detected within the triggering event detection timeframe (“employment of bounded-deferral policies wherein a local device commits to relaying a message that it has received before a message specific deadline is reached; the device in accordance with the invention attempts to determine or infer a most appropriate time for interruption within an allotted period” (i.e. triggering event detection timeframe), e.g. see [0011]; this timeframe is described as a “deferral period” or “max deferral time”, e.g. see [0031], [0054]; “If a "likely available" state is observed via monitoring the user's activities before the max deferral time for that urgency, the notification is passed through to the user.”, e.g. see [0054])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas to include activating a triggering event detection timeframe associated with the event, wherein the triggering event is detected within the triggering event detection timeframe as taught by Horvitz, for the purposes of providing effective means for “mitigating disruptiveness associated with notifications” (Horvitz [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas further teaches:
wherein the triggering event comprises at least one of an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, a device display triggering event, a device movement triggering event, a biometric triggering event, a time event, a period of time, a triggering event based on location information, or a triggering event based on calendar information, or triggering events based on location information and calendar information
Regarding claim 12, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas further teaches:
wherein the contextual information comprises one or more of calendar information, location information, an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, or a biometric triggering event, and wherein the contextualizing the
failure to respond is based on the one or more of calendar information, location information, an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, or a biometric triggering event
Regarding claim 13, Havas teaches: A method comprising:
determining an event of a therapeutic protocol; (the “system is configured to provide scheduling, reminder and adherence information about one or more schedules for taking a medication”, e.g. see [0128]; “a patient specific schedule for when the medicine…is to be taken (1 pill/4 hours; 2 pills every 6 hours; 1 pill daily or similar information)”, e.g. see [0131])
detecting at least one triggering event for generating a notification associated with the event of the therapeutic protocol; (“Step 78 determines whether the current time is greater than the calculated reminder time for the event scheduled…If the current time is greater than the calculated reminder time for the event (step 78 is YES) then a reminder is needed (step 82).”, e.g. see [0104]-[0105])
[…] providing the notification to the user to assist in treatment of a medical condition. (the system generates “an audible, a visual and/or a physical (i.e., vibrate) signal or provide other reminder notifications (phone, smart phone update, SMS etc.) to alert the user” to take their medication to treat a medical problem, e.g. see [0128], [0005])
Havas does not teach:
determining that the at least one triggering event exceeds a notification threshold indicating a level of confidence that a user will receive a notification; and
in response to the at least one triggering event exceeding the notification threshold, providing the notification to the user
However, Horvitz in the analogous art teaches:
determining that the at least one triggering event exceeds a notification threshold indicating a level of confidence that a user will receive a notification; and (determining “transmission reliability” (i.e. a notification threshold), which is the “probability that a message will get through to a user given the situation sensed by endpoint sensors”, e.g. see [0031]; this probability is represented as “p(transrellcontext), that is the likelihood of getting through on the device given context”, e.g. see [0106]; “If the transmission reliability…becomes high enough” (i.e. indicating a level of confidence) before rendering an alert to a user, e.g. see [0033])
in response to the at least one triggering event exceeding the notification threshold, providing the notification to the user (“If the transmission reliability…becomes high enough…the user can be buzzed”, e.g. see [0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas to include determining that the at least one triggering event exceeds a notification threshold indicating a level of confidence that a user will receive a notification and in response to the at least one triggering event exceeding the notification threshold, providing the notification to the user as taught by Horvitz, for the purposes of ensuring a message is only delivered when the likelihood of it being received becomes “high enough” (Horvitz [0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 13 as described above.
Havas further teaches:
wherein the at least one triggering event is predetermined for the corresponding notification (“a scheduled time for a user activity” (a predetermined schedule), e.g. see [0012], [0104])
Regarding claim 16, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 13 as described above.
Havas does not teach:
wherein the at least one triggering event comprises a first triggering event, the method further comprising detecting one or more additional triggering events to confirm that the notification should be provided
However, Horvitz in the analogous art teaches:
wherein the at least one triggering event comprises a first triggering event, the method further comprising detecting one or more additional triggering events to confirm that the notification should be provided (using “perceptual sensors including GPS, 802.11 signal strength, accelerometers, infrared proximity detectors, and touch sensors” to confirm the notification should be rendered, e.g. see [0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas to include the at least one triggering event comprises a first triggering event, the method further comprising detecting one or more additional triggering events to confirm that the notification should be provided as taught by Horvitz, for the purposes of ensuring a message is only delivered when the likelihood of it being received becomes “high enough” (Horvitz [0033]).
Regarding claim 19, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas further teaches:
determining whether a response to the notification is received; (tracking whether the user responds to the medication reminder by requiring the user to scan an RFID or NFC tag attached to the medicine container, “Each time the patent picks up the container to take a pill, the container is passed within range of a reader in such a way to permit detection of the element 14…The reader will record the read time and date corresponding to when the activity tag 10 was read”, e.g. see [0130])
on a condition that the response to the notification is received, performing management of the treatment of the medical condition; and (if the tag is detected in accordance with the schedule, the system logs the event and updates the patient’s adherence record, managing the treatment; determining “perfect adherence to the scheduled performance” and displaying an icon indicating that a “scheduled activity is completed” when the “machine-readable element” is detected, e.g. see [0017], [0015], [0148])
on a condition that the response to the notification fails to be received […] (determining “a scheduled activity is…missed” when “an activity associated with that machine readable element is not detected” beyond the scheduled time, e.g. see [0015])
Havas does not teach:
contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification for the event
However, Horvitz in the analogous art teaches:
contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification for the event (when delivering notifications, the system evaluates “contextual information” to determine the user’s “state of attention”, e.g. see [0115], [0117]; using “perceptual sensors including GPS, 802.11 signal strength, accelerometers, infrared proximity detectors, and touch sensors” and a “user's appointment status encoded on a user's digital calendar” to “determine that a user is too busy to receive an alert”, e.g. see [0032], [0030], [0041]; contextualizing an inability to respond by detecting that the user is “currently involved in strenuous activity” or in “uninterruptible meetings”, e.g. see [0039], [0088])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas to include contextualizing the failure to respond to the notification for the event as taught by Horvitz, for the purposes of “autonomously determin[ing] a suitable time for interruption within an allotted period” (Horvitz [0032]).
Claims 2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havas and Horvitz in further view of Bousamra (US 2018/0168448 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas and Horvitz do not teach:
wherein the management of the treatment of the medical condition comprises a diabetic condition, and wherein the management of the treatment of the diabetic condition is performed by: adjusting a scheduled time to monitor fasting blood glucose levels of the user, modifying a therapeutic dose of the therapeutic protocol, or adjusting a scheduled time to administer the therapeutic dose
However, Bousamra in the analogous art of medical compliance and disease management (e.g. see [0002], [0009]) teaches:
wherein the management of the treatment of the medical condition comprises a diabetic condition, and wherein the management of the treatment of the diabetic condition is performed by: adjusting a scheduled time to monitor fasting blood glucose levels of the user, modifying a therapeutic dose of the therapeutic protocol, or adjusting a scheduled time to administer the therapeutic dose (“optimize a patient's therapy of the chronic disease”, specifically “diabetes mellitus”, e.g. see [0004]; “calculating an insulin adjustment parameter…adjusting an insulin dosage by an amount of the insulin adjustment parameter in response to the biomarker sampling parameter falling outside the target biomarker range”, e.g. see [0011])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include the management of the treatment of the medical condition comprises a diabetic condition, and wherein the management of the treatment of the diabetic condition is performed by: adjusting a scheduled time to monitor fasting blood glucose levels of the user, modifying a therapeutic dose of the therapeutic protocol, or adjusting a scheduled time to administer the therapeutic dose as taught by Bousamra, for the purposes of determining treatment that “consistently results in fasting blood glucose values within a predetermined range, and without adverse events (e.g., hypoglycemic events or hyperglycemic events of varying severity) occurring at any time of the day” (Bousamra [0009]).
Regarding claim 8, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas teaches tracking medications including insulin (e.g. see [0109]).
Havas does not teach:
wherein the therapeutic protocol comprises an insulin titration protocol
However, Bousamra in the analogous art teaches:
wherein the therapeutic protocol comprises an insulin titration protocol (“optimizing the titration of insulin”, e.g. see [0009])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include the therapeutic protocol comprises an insulin titration protocol as taught by Bousamra, for the purposes of “permitting the creation of structured centralized testing procedures to assist the patient in insulin titration” (Bousamra [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Havas, Horvitz and Bousamra teach the method of claim 8 as described above.
Havas does not teach:
wherein the event is a measurement event for measuring a fasting blood glucose level, the method further comprising: determining that the fasting blood glucose level is within a targeted therapeutic range; and
wherein the providing the notification to the user is related to the fasting blood glucose level being within the targeted therapeutic range
However, Bousamra in the analogous art teaches:
wherein the event is a measurement event for measuring a fasting blood glucose level, the method further comprising: determining that the fasting blood glucose level is within a targeted therapeutic range; and (collecting a “fasting blood glucose reading”, e.g. see [0082]; “comparing the biomarker sampling parameter to a target biomarker range”, e.g. see [0011])
wherein the providing the notification to the user is related to the fasting blood glucose level being within the targeted therapeutic range (“exiting the testing method in response to the adjusted insulin dosage being optimized…the optimized insulin dosage being achieved when the one or more biomarker sampling parameters fall within the target biomarker range”, e.g. see [0011])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include the event is a measurement event for measuring a fasting blood glucose level, determining that the fasting blood glucose level is within a targeted therapeutic range and providing the notification to the user is related to the fasting blood glucose level being within the targeted therapeutic range as taught by Bousamra, for the purposes of “permitting the creation of structured centralized testing procedures to assist the patient in insulin titration” (Bousamra [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Havas, Horvitz and Bousamra teach the method of claim 8 as described above.
Havas does not teach:
wherein the event is a dosing event for providing a dose of insulin, the method further comprising: determining an optimal dose of insulin associated with the dosing event to achieve a targeted therapeutic range; and
wherein the notification comprises the optimal dose of insulin to achieve the targeted therapeutic range, and wherein the notification is configured to be displayed on a mobile device associated with the user
However, Bousamra in the analogous art teaches:
wherein the event is a dosing event for providing a dose of insulin, the method further comprising: determining an optimal dose of insulin associated with the dosing event to achieve a targeted therapeutic range; and (“calculating an insulin adjustment parameter” and “adjusting an insulin dosage” until the “optimized insulin dosage is administered” to keep biomarkers “within the target biomarker range”, e.g. see [0011])
wherein the notification comprises the optimal dose of insulin to achieve the targeted therapeutic range, and wherein the notification is configured to be displayed on a mobile device associated with the user (outputting the optimal dosage to the user via “diabetes software integrated into a personal digital assistant, handheld computer, or mobile phone”, e.g. see [0010])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include the event is a dosing event for providing a dose of insulin, determining an optimal dose of insulin associated with the dosing event to achieve a targeted therapeutic range, the notification comprises the optimal dose of insulin to achieve the targeted therapeutic range, and the notification is configured to be displayed on a mobile device associated with the user as taught by Bousamra, for the purposes of “permitting the creation of structured centralized testing procedures to assist the patient in insulin titration” (Bousamra [0008]).
Claims 5, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havas and Horvitz in further view of Borges (US 2021/0241877 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Horvitz teaches adjusting the timer corresponding to the notification as described above.
Havas and Horvitz do not teach:
wherein detecting the triggering event further comprises: detecting a keyword from at least one of a calendar event title or a calendar event location, wherein the calendar event title or the calendar event location are included in the contextual information; and comparing the detected keyword to keywords associated with the notification; and
wherein the adjusting corresponding to the notification is based on the comparison of the detected keyword and the keywords associated with the notification
However, Borges in the analogous art of medical alarm management (e.g. see [0011]) teaches:
wherein detecting the triggering event further comprises: detecting a keyword from at least one of a calendar event title or a calendar event location, wherein the calendar event title or the calendar event location are included in the contextual information; and comparing the detected keyword to keywords associated with the notification; and (“the user's smartphone calendar has been blocked off from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm for "Trial"” (pulling text keywords from a smartphone calendar to deduce context); comparing the detected calendar text “Trial” to the user’s notification settings to determine that “Trial” equates to a state where the user cannot be disrupted, e.g. see [0028])
wherein the adjusting corresponding to the notification is based on the comparison of the detected keyword and the keywords associated with the notification (changing the alarm settings while the “Trial” keyword condition is active, e.g. see [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include detecting a keyword from at least one of a calendar event title or a calendar event location, wherein the calendar event title or the calendar event location are included in the contextual information, comparing the detected keyword to keywords associated with the notification and the adjusting corresponding to the notification is based on the comparison of the detected keyword and the keywords associated with the notification as taught by Borges, for the purposes of avoiding disturbing and interfering with the user’s life at inconvenient times (Borges [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Horvitz teaches adjusting the timer corresponding to the notification as described above.
Havas and Horvitz do not teach:
wherein detecting the triggering event further comprises: detecting a keyword from at least one of a calendar event or location information associated with a mobile device associated with a user, wherein the calendar event title or the location information are included in the contextual information; and comparing the detected keyword to keywords associated with the notification; and
wherein the adjusting corresponding to the notification is based on the comparison of the detected keyword and the keywords associated with the notification
However, Borges in the analogous art teaches:
wherein detecting the triggering event further comprises: detecting a keyword from at least one of a calendar event or location information associated with a mobile device associated with a user, wherein the calendar event title or the location information are included in the contextual information; and comparing the detected keyword to keywords associated with the notification; and (“The user's smartphone global positioning system (GPS) receiver…may inform the PDM device that the user is at a court house and the user's smartphone calendar has been blocked off from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm for "Trial"” (pulling text keywords from a smartphone calendar to deduce context); comparing the detected calendar text “Trial” to the user’s notification settings to determine that “Trial” equates to a state where the user cannot be disrupted, e.g. see [0028])
wherein the adjusting corresponding to the notification is based on the comparison of the detected keyword and the keywords associated with the notification (changing the alarm settings while the “Trial” keyword condition is active, e.g. see [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include detecting a keyword from at least one of a calendar event or location information associated with a mobile device associated with a user, wherein the calendar event title or the location information are included in the contextual information, comparing the detected keyword to keywords associated with the notification and the adjusting corresponding to the notification is based on the comparison of the detected keyword and the keywords associated with the notification as taught by Borges, for the purposes of avoiding disturbing and interfering with the user’s life at inconvenient times (Borges [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas and Horvitz do not teach:
wherein the triggering event comprises at least one of an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, a device display triggering event, a device movement triggering event, a biometric triggering event, a time event, a period of time, a triggering event based on location information, or a triggering event based on calendar information, or triggering events based on location information and calendar information
However, Borges in the analogous art teaches:
wherein the triggering event comprises at least one of an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, a device display triggering event, a device movement triggering event, a biometric triggering event, a time event, a period of time, a triggering event based on location information, or a triggering event based on calendar information, or triggering events based on location information and calendar information (“The user's smartphone global positioning system (GPS) receiver…may inform the PDM device that the user is at a court house and the user's smartphone calendar has been blocked off from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm for "Trial"”, e.g. see [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include the triggering event comprises at least one of an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, a device display triggering event, a device movement triggering event, a biometric triggering event, a time event, a period of time, a triggering event based on location information, or a triggering event based on calendar information, or triggering events based on location information and calendar information as taught by Borges, for the purposes of providing “techniques for identifying when an alarm or notification are to be attenuated or delayed”(Borges [0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Havas and Horvitz do not teach:
wherein the contextual information comprises one or more of calendar information, location information, an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, or a biometric triggering event, and wherein the contextualizing the failure to respond is based on the one or more of calendar information, location information, an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, or a biometric triggering event
However, Borges in the analogous art teaches:
wherein the contextual information comprises one or more of calendar information, location information, an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, or a biometric triggering event, and wherein the contextualizing the failure to respond is based on the one or more of calendar information, location information, an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, or a biometric triggering event (“The user's smartphone global positioning system (GPS) receiver…may inform the PDM device that the user is at a court house and the user's smartphone calendar has been blocked off from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm for "Trial"” to determine that the user is unavailable, e.g. see [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include the contextual information comprises one or more of calendar information, location information, an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, or a biometric triggering event, and wherein the contextualizing the failure to respond is based on the one or more of calendar information, location information, an activity that characterizes a circadian rhythm of the user, or a biometric triggering event as taught by Borges, for the purposes of providing “techniques for identifying when an alarm or notification are to be attenuated or delayed” (Borges [0011]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havas, Horvitz and Borges in further view of Soffer (US 2017/0372267 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Havas, Horvitz and Borges teach the method of claim 5 as described above.
Havas, Horvitz and Borges do not teach:
wherein the adjusting the timer corresponding to the notification comprises adjusting the timer of the notification to coincide with an occurrence of a calendar event associated with the at least one of the calendar event title or the calendar event location
However, Soffer in the analogous art of context-aware notification management and rescheduling (e.g. see [0001]) teaches:
wherein the adjusting the timer corresponding to the notification comprises adjusting the timer of the notification to coincide with an occurrence of a calendar event associated with the at least one of the calendar event title or the calendar event location (calculating the rescheduled time to coincide with the end of a calendar occurrence, generating a semantic text option such as “Call Back after Meeting”, e.g. see [0042], [0063])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas, Horvitz and Borges to include adjusting the timer of the notification to coincide with an occurrence of a calendar event associated with the at least one of the calendar event title or the calendar event location as taught by Soffer, for the purposes of determining a rescheduled time that is “"anchored" on the user's timeline” (Soffer [0033]).
Claims 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havas and Horvitz in further view of Soffer.
Regarding claim 14, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 13 as described above.
Havas and Horvitz do not teach:
further comprising adjusting the notification threshold to increase or decrease a level of confidence based on the at least one detected triggering event
However, Soffer in the analogous art teaches:
further comprising adjusting the notification threshold to increase or decrease a level of confidence based on the at least one detected triggering event (“offline logic 220 may be implemented in a scheduling system to perform user-customized machine learning training”, e.g. see [0031]; “recognizes communication event rescheduling patterns such as: "the user tends to call back when leaving work", "the user is not likely to call back while driving"” (dynamically adjusting the data model thresholds/rankings based on historical and newly detected triggering events), e.g. see [0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include adjusting the notification threshold to increase or decrease a level of confidence based on the at least one detected triggering event as taught by Soffer, for the purposes of determining a rescheduled time that is “"anchored" on the user's timeline” (Soffer [0033]).
Regarding claim 17, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 13 as described above.
Havas and Horvitz do not teach:
wherein the at least one triggering event comprises a plurality of triggering events, and wherein each triggering event is associated with a corresponding weight for meeting the notification threshold
However, Soffer in the analogous art teaches:
wherein the at least one triggering event comprises a plurality of triggering events, and wherein each triggering event is associated with a corresponding weight for meeting the notification threshold (evaluating a plurality of events, e.g. calendar schedule, location, traffic, relationships; using machine learning to process these inputs using weighted attributes to rank the available options and the determine the overall score/threshold, e.g. see [0030], [0034])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include the at least one triggering event comprises a plurality of triggering events, and wherein each triggering event is associated with a corresponding weight for meeting the notification as taught by Soffer, for the purposes of providing “assistance if the user's schedule is variable or requires specific planning” (Soffer [0004]).
Regarding claim 18, Havas and Horvitz teach the method of claim 18 as described above.
Havas and Horvitz do not teach:
determining a relative influence of each of the plurality of triggering events on obtaining a response to the notification; and assign the corresponding weight to each triggering event of the plurality of triggering events based on the relative influence for obtaining the response to the notification
However, Soffer in the analogous art teaches:
determining a relative influence of each of the plurality of triggering events on obtaining a response to the notification; and assign the corresponding weight to each triggering event of the plurality of triggering events based on the relative influence for obtaining the response to the notification (an offline training module that analyzes past behavior to identify the relative influence of different contexts such as determining that the user is more likely to respond while driving than exercising; the models assigns weights/influences to these distinct features to output the ranked scheduled recommendations, e.g. see [0030], [0040])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Havas and Horvitz to include determining a relative influence of each of the plurality of triggering events on obtaining a response to the notification; and assign the corresponding weight to each triggering event of the plurality of triggering events based on the relative influence for obtaining the response to the notification as taught by Soffer, for the purposes of providing “assistance if the user's schedule is variable or requires specific planning” (Soffer [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference Mehta (US 2015/0143281 A1) discloses notifications and reminders based on user states. Reference Pererira (US 2016/0203442 A1) discloses smart appointments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaisha Abdullah whose telephone number is (571)272-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9171. 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.
/A.A./
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights