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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/11/2025. As directed by the amendment: Claim 8 has been amended, claims 3, 10, and 17 have been cancelled, and claims 21-23 have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are presently pending in the application wherein claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 13, 15-16, and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/11/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that McMahon does not discloses the amendments to claim 8. Examiner disagrees, McMahon discloses obtaining nutritional data of a meal (parag. [0168]) based on user’s location and routine meal time wherein the nutritional data includes carbohydrate content (lines 11-15 in parag. [0338]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the contextual information comprises time of day information and location information associated with the meal” and claim 8 recites “the contextual information comprises timing information or location information indicative of a carbohydrate content for the meal”. Claim 22 depends on claim 8 wherein claim 8 recites the contextual information comprises either the timing information or the location information. It is not clear if the contextual information comprises both the timing and location information or either one of them. Clarification is required.
Claim 23 is rejected for depending on claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 11-12, 14, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMahon (US 2017/0049383).
Regarding Claim 8, McMahon discloses a processor-implemented method for dosage recommendation (parag. [0056], first sentence), the method comprising: obtaining contextual information for a meal, wherein the contextual information comprises timing information or location information (user’s location and routine meal time) indicative of a carbohydrate content of the meal (nutritional data) (parag. [0168] and lines 11-15 in parag. [0338]); predicting an amount of glucose to be absorbed into a bloodstream of a patient over a duration of time due to consumption of the meal based at least on the contextual information for the meal (parags. [0076]), [0125], [0327], and [0341]-[0344]); determining, based on the amount of glucose to be absorbed into the bloodstream, a dosage of insulin (recommended glycemic control parameters: information related to insulin delivery (e.g., insulin bolus size)) (parag. [0343]) that, when delivered, counteracts an effect of the amount of glucose to be absorbed into the bloodstream and that maximizes an amount of time the patient's glucose levels are within a target range utilizing an artificial intelligence technique (parag. [0344] and parag. [0114], last sentence), wherein the target range comprises an upper limit associated with that is a predetermined value below a hyperglycemic condition level (hyperglycemia, “greater than 240 mg/dl”) and a lower limit associated with that is a predetermined value above a hypoglycemic condition level (hypoglycemia, “less than 70 mg/dl”) (parag. [0110]); and affecting insulin therapy of the patient based on outputting information (output message) indicative of the determined dosage (recommended glycemic control parameters) (abstract).
Regarding Claim 11, McMahon discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the amount of glucose comprise a first amount of glucose to be absorbed into the bloodstream at a first time instance within the duration of time, and a second amount of glucose to be absorbed into the bloodstream at a second time instance within the duration of time (glucose plot 434 in Fig.5 shows amount of glucose absorbed into the bloodstream along different hours of the day) (parag. [0193]).
Regarding Claim 12, McMahon discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein affecting the insulin therapy comprises: communicating towards an insulin delivery device (106) the information indicative of the determined dosage (parags. [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 14, McMahon discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the insulin delivery device is an insulin pump configured to automatically deliver the determined dosage to the patient (parag. [0070]).
Regarding Claim 21, McMahon discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the carbohydrate content is inferred using the contextual information without receiving explicit user input indicating the carbohydrate content of the meal (parag. [0168]).
Regarding Claim 22, McMahon discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the contextual information comprises time of the day information and location information associated with the meal (parag. [0168]).
Regarding Claim 23, McMahon discloses the method of claim 22, and further discloses wherein predicting the amount of glucose to be absorbed into the bloodstream comprises comparing the time of the day information and location information associated with the meal with previously consumed meals associated with a similar time of day and similar location information (parags. [0327], and [0341]-[0344]).
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 TANIA M ISMAIL whose telephone number is (313)446-6625. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-3:30 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 3783 /BHISMA MEHTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783