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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 03/13/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 31, 33-42, and 44-50 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 42, 46, and 49, as well as the addition of new claim 50.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “range of associated” should instead recite –range associated--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 31, 33-35, 42, and 44-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over various teachings of Taub (US20190183393; cited by Applicant) in view of Haider (US20080077158).
Regarding claim 31, Taub discloses a glucose monitoring system (Paragraph [0133], “Generally, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to in vivo methods and devices for detecting at least one analyte such as glucose in body fluid. Accordingly, embodiments include in vivo analyte sensors configured so that at least a portion of the sensor is positioned in the body of a user (e.g., within the ISF), to obtain information about at least one analyte of the body, e.g., transcutaneously positioned in user's body”), comprising:
an on-body unit comprising a glucose sensor and sensor electronics, wherein the on-body unit is configured to transmit data indicative of a glucose level of a user (Paragraph [0133], “In certain embodiments, an in vivo analyte sensor is coupled to an electronics unit that is maintained on the body of the user such as on a skin surface, where such coupling provides on body, in vivo analyte sensor electronics assemblies” & Paragraph [0134], “In certain embodiments, analyte information is communicated from a first device such as an on body electronics unit to a second analyte monitoring device which may include user interface features, including a display, and/or the like”); and
a reader device comprising a display (Paragraph [0134], “In certain embodiments, analyte information is communicated from a first device such as an on body electronics unit to a second analyte monitoring device which may include user interface features, including a display, and/or the like” & display device #1120), a transceiver configured to receive the data indicative of the glucose level (Paragraph [0183], “It should be appreciated that the in some embodiments the analyte monitoring device may be communicably coupled to the remote device via wireless technology. In such instances, the analyte monitoring device may include corresponding transmitters, receivers, and/or transceivers” & Paragraph [0162], “For example, display device 1120 may be configured to transmit one or more commands to on body electronics 1110 to initiate data transfer, and in response, on body electronics 1110 may be configured to wirelessly transmit stored analyte related data collected during the monitoring time period to display device 1120”), and a memory (Paragraph [0162], “In certain embodiments, the received data from the on body electronics 1110 may be stored (permanently or temporarily) in one or more memory of the display device 1120”) coupled with one or more processors (Paragraph [0137], “Display devices may also include programming stored in memory for execution by one or more microprocessors and/or ASICs to generate and transmit the one or more request command, control signal or data packet to send to the on body electronics in response to a user activation of an input mechanism on the display device such as depressing a button on the display device, triggering a soft button associated with the data communication function, and so on”), wherein the memory is configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
output to the display (Paragraph [0410], “In some aspects of the present disclosure, the analyte monitoring device may be programmed with software to provide summaries of information and data related to obtain readings. The software provides an interface to view and manage features related to generated reports. Different types of summaries may be generated. For example, FIGS. 21A-D illustrate various types of interfaces for displaying summaries on the analyte monitoring device, according to certain embodiments”) a first view comprising a first set of graphical elements, wherein, in the first view, each graphical element of the first set is representative of a correlating amount of time within a predetermined time period that the glucose level of the user is within a glucose range associated with the each graphical element of the first set (Fig. 21D, Paragraph [0061], “FIG. 21D illustrates an exemplary screen for showing the percentage of time the sensor readings were within a target zone, according to one embodiment” & Paragraph [0420], “FIG. 21D illustrates an exemplary screen for showing the percentage of time the sensor readings were within a target zone. Time In Target screen 642 displays a representation 642 a of the percentage of time within a target zone, above a target zone, and below a target zone, for sensor readings obtained for a period of time (e.g., 7 days in the embodiment shown). Trigger element 642 c is provided to enable the user to change the time period—e.g., similarly as described in FIG. 21C. Representation 642 a also includes bar graphs for the associated percentages” – note the 7 day period of time is considered the predetermined time period), and wherein at least one glucose range associated with the first set is customizable by the user (Paragraph [0274], “a target range or acceptable range may be … customizable by the user,” Paragraph [0275], “Referring back to block 332, if it is determined that the sensor is not out of range, then it is determined if the glucose level was a high or low glucose level 334. For example, a high or low glucose level may be preset by the manufacturer or customizable by the user” & Fig. 84 shows how to customize the target glucose range to be displayed in Fig. 21D), and
output to the display (Paragraph [0410], “In some aspects of the present disclosure, the analyte monitoring device may be programmed with software to provide summaries of information and data related to obtain readings. The software provides an interface to view and manage features related to generated reports. Different types of summaries may be generated. For example, FIGS. 21A-D illustrate various types of interfaces for displaying summaries on the analyte monitoring device, according to certain embodiments”) a second view comprising a second set of graphical elements, wherein, in the second view, each graphical element of the second set is representative of a correlating amount of time … that the glucose level of the user is within a glucose range associated with the each graphical element of the second set (Fig. 21D, Paragraph [0061], “FIG. 21D illustrates an exemplary screen for showing the percentage of time the sensor readings were within a target zone, according to one embodiment” & Paragraph [0420], “FIG. 21D illustrates an exemplary screen for showing the percentage of time the sensor readings were within a target zone. Time In Target screen 642 displays a representation 642 a of the percentage of time within a target zone, above a target zone, and below a target zone, for sensor readings obtained for a period of time (e.g., 7 days in the embodiment shown). Trigger element 642 c is provided to enable the user to change the time period—e.g., similarly as described in FIG. 21C. Representation 642 a also includes bar graphs for the associated percentages” – note that the time period can be changed to e.g. “Last 14 Days,” “Last 30 Days,” etc., as shown with respect to Fig. 21D), … .
Taub does not appear to explicitly disclose each graphical element of the second set is representative of a correlating amount of time within the same predetermined time period, wherein none of the glucose ranges associated with the second set are customizable by the user (although it does disclose displaying manufacturer preset ranges as opposed to customized ranges in ¶¶s 0274 and 0275). Taub does not appear to explicitly disclose the processor caused to: display the first view when a switch element is in a first configuration and the second view when the switch element is in a second configuration (although it does disclose trigger elements that allow switching between screens (e.g. trigger element 642c, etc.), including radio buttons and toggles that display one view in one configuration and another view in another configuration – see Figs. 24, 25, toggle 2048, empty circle 2006, etc.)
Haider discloses enabling a user to change between pre-set views, some of which include system defaults and some of which are customized by the user (¶¶s 0055, 0059). Haider teaches switching between the views based on e.g. a touch screen control (¶¶s 0053, 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second view similar to the first view (as already contemplated by the ability to scroll through different periods in Taub: Fig. 21D) to show a second view (associated with e.g. the same 7-day time period) based on a preset glucose target range instead of the custom glucose target range, for the purpose of helping the user see changes between the two views (as suggested by the implementation of trigger elements 406a, 412c, 642c, etc. in Taub), and for the purpose of enabling a user to easily revert to a good preset (Haider: ¶¶s 0054, 0055), with e.g. the preset range having value since it is determined by the manufacturer as a good default range, and the customized range having value since it is more tailored to the user at least for a period of time (but notably, may have mistakes in it), the switching allowing for less cumbersome use (Haider: ¶¶s 0054, 0055). Further, duplicating the graphical representation to have a second view is a mere duplication of parts and has no patentable significance since there is no new and unexpected result produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when adding a second view to use a switch element like the toggle or radio button already contemplated by Taub to switch between the views, as the simple substitution of one type of user input switch (trigger element 642c) for another (the toggle or radio button) with predictable results (switching views between e.g. preset and custom settings)).
Regarding claim 33, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the switch element comprises a toggle (Paragraph [0222], “The user may navigate through branches of various screens via trigger elements on the device. The trigger elements may be any variety of trigger elements—e.g., buttons, keys, toggle switches, wheels, arrows, etc.”).
Regarding claim 34, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the switch element comprises a slidable element (Paragraph [0228], “In some instances, the user may be able to switch between screens by sliding a finger across the display of the device” – also see Fig. 25, using something like toggle 2078).
Regarding claim 35, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the at least one glucose range associated with the first set that is customizable by the user comprises a customizable target glucose range (Paragraph [0274], “As shown at block 332, it is determined whether the resulting reading is out of range. If the sensor is out of range, then it is determined if a high or low glucose condition has occurred. For example, a target range or acceptable range may be preset by the manufacturer or customizable by the user” Paragraph [0275], “Referring back to block 332, if it is determined that the sensor is not out of range, then it is determined if the glucose level was a high or low glucose level 334. For example, a high or low glucose level may be preset by the manufacturer or customizable by the user”).
Regarding claim 42, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the correlating amount of time that the glucose level of the user is within the glucose range associated with the each graphical element of the first set within the predetermined time period comprises a percentage of the predetermined time period, and wherein the correlating amount of time that the glucose level of the user is within the glucose range associated with the each graphical element of the second set comprises a percentage of the same predetermined time period. (Fig. 21D # 642A shows the percentage of time [54%] of when the glucose is “in target”).
Regarding claim 44, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to output to the display a date range indicator comprising a date range associated with the first set of graphical elements and the second set of graphical elements (Fig. 21D, #642C “Last 7 Days”).
Regarding claim 45, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to output to the display a data availability indicator comprising a period of time in which the data indicative of the glucose level is available (Fig. 21D, #642C “Last 7 Days”).
Regarding claim 46, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to output to the display a plurality of selectable icons configured to allow a user to select the predetermined time period, wherein the each of the plurality of selectable icons corresponds to a time period (Paragraph [0420], “Trigger element 642c is provided to enable the user to change the time period—e.g., similarly as described in FIG. 21C.” Note that each of the time periods, whether 7 days, 14 days, 30 days, etc., has an associated icon (trigger element 642c) that allows a user to select the time period – also see ¶¶s 0222 and 0223).
Regarding claim 47, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 35.
Taub further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to output to the display a link to an interface configured to allow the user to edit the customizable target glucose range (Paragraph [0274], “Paragraph [0274], “As shown at block 332, it is determined whether the resulting reading is out of range. If the sensor is out of range, then it is determined if a high or low glucose condition has occurred. For example, a target range or acceptable range may be preset by the manufacturer or customizable by the user”).
Regarding claim 48, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the at least one glucose range associated with the first set that is customizable by the user is a target range (¶ 0274).
Regarding claim 49, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub further discloses wherein the at least one glucose range of associated with the first set that is customizable is different from each range of the glucose ranges associated with the second set (¶ 0274, there is no limit to what the customized range may be).
Regarding claim 50, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 35.
Taub further discloses wherein the first set of graphical elements comprises a first low glucose range, wherein the second set of graphical elements comprises a second low glucose range, and wherein the first low glucose range is the same as the second low glucose range (Fig. 21D, etc., the graphical element associated with both ranges, i.e., whether the target range is preset or customized, is “Below.” Also see ¶ 0274).
Claim 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub-Haider as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Raisoni (US20160270740; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 36, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub-Haider does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each of the graphical elements of the first set comprises a different color from the other graphical elements of the first set.
However, Raisoni discloses wherein each of the graphical elements of the first set comprises a different color from the other graphical elements of the first set (Paragraph [0011], “In some embodiments, the method may further comprise: displaying an area of the trend graph below each of the plurality of analyte values as a first color when a corresponding analyte value is outside of the high analyte alarm level and low analyte alarm level, displaying the area of the trend graph below each of the plurality of analyte values as a second color when a corresponding analyte value is between the high analyte target level and the low analyte target level, and displaying the area of the trend graph below each of the plurality of analyte values as a third color when a corresponding analyte value is either between the high analyte target level and the high analyte alarm level or between the low analyte target level and the low analyte alarm level, wherein the first, second, and third colors are different colors”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to incorporate the teachings of Raisoni by adding wherein each of the graphical elements of the first set comprises a different color from the other graphical elements of the first set. The different colors provide another visual indication to show where the data falls (e.g. too high, too low, in target).
Regarding claim 37, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub-Haider does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each of the graphical elements of the second set comprises a different color from the other graphical elements of the second set.
However, Raisoni discloses wherein each of the graphical elements of the second set comprises a different color from the other graphical elements of the second set (Paragraph [0011], “In some embodiments, the method may further comprise: displaying an area of the trend graph below each of the plurality of analyte values as a first color when a corresponding analyte value is outside of the high analyte alarm level and low analyte alarm level, displaying the area of the trend graph below each of the plurality of analyte values as a second color when a corresponding analyte value is between the high analyte target level and the low analyte target level, and displaying the area of the trend graph below each of the plurality of analyte values as a third color when a corresponding analyte value is either between the high analyte target level and the high analyte alarm level or between the low analyte target level and the low analyte alarm level, wherein the first, second, and third colors are different colors”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to incorporate the teachings of Raisoni by adding wherein each of the graphical elements of the second set comprises a different color from the other graphical elements of the second set. The different colors provide another visual indication to show where the data falls (e.g. too high, too low, in target).
Regarding claim 38, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub-Haider does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a total number of graphical elements of the first set is equal to a total number of graphical elements of the second set.
However, Raisoni discloses wherein a total number of graphical elements of the first set is equal to a total number of graphical elements of the second set (Paragraph [0379], “For example, the pie chart of FIG. 18 depicts a measure of the percentage of time for which glucose values were above a target level, below a target level, or within a target level. A user 715 may customize the categories or ranges of analyte values displayed in the report to include additional or alternative categories or ranges of analyte values, such as, for example, glucose values above an alarm value, glucose values below an alarm value, glucose values between alarm level, and the like”, Customizing the views to have “alternative” categories would mean that even if the categories change, the overall number of graphical elements would be the same between the views).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to incorporate the teachings of Raisoni by adding wherein a total number of graphical elements of the first set is equal to a total number of graphical elements of the second set. The advantage of having the same number of graphical elements is to facilitate comparison between the two views.
Regarding claim 39, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub-Haider does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a total number of graphical elements of the first set is not equal to a total number of graphical elements of the second set.
However, Raisoni discloses wherein a total number of graphical elements of the first set is not equal to a total number of graphical elements of the second set (Paragraph [0379], “For example, the pie chart of FIG. 18 depicts a measure of the percentage of time for which glucose values were above a target level, below a target level, or within a target level. A user 715 may customize the categories or ranges of analyte values displayed in the report to include additional or alternative categories or ranges of analyte values, such as, for example, glucose values above an alarm value, glucose values below an alarm value, glucose values between alarm level, and the like”, Customizing the views to have “additional” categories would mean the number of graphical elements are not the same).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to incorporate the teachings of Raisoni by adding wherein a total number of graphical elements of the first set is not equal to a total number of graphical elements of the second set. The advantage is that it allows the user to add or subtract the number of graphical elements depending on their needs.
Regarding claim 40, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub-Haider does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the reader device comprises a smart phone.
However, Raisoni discloses wherein the reader device comprises a smart phone (Paragraph [0090], “In some embodiments, the analyte monitoring device comprises at least one of the following: a mobile device; a smart phone; a tablet; a PC; and a netbook”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to incorporate the teachings of Raisoni by adding wherein the reader device comprises a smart phone. The advantage of using a smart phone is a more versatile and portable device.
Regarding claim 41, Taub-Haider discloses the glucose monitoring system of claim 31.
Taub-Haider does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the reader device comprises a smart watch.
However, Raisoni discloses wherein the reader device comprises a smart watch (Paragraph [0260], “In yet another example, one or more of the second device(s) (741, 742 . . . 749) may comprise a health monitoring device such as a health monitoring watch, an activity sensor, a food monitoring device”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to incorporate the teachings of Raisoni by adding wherein the reader device comprises a smart watch. The advantage of using a smart watch is a more versatile and portable device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, they are not persuasive. Haider is analogous art because it is in the same field and because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Both disclosures are in the medical field and deal with medical monitoring. Both disclosures are also in the data visualization field. Applicant’s Figs. 3A-4O all relate to data visualization. Haider also relates to data visualization (¶¶s 0010, 0054, 0055, 0061, etc.). It is not sufficient to identify one difference in narrowly-characterized fields (e.g. computer assisted surgery vs analyte monitoring systems) when there is overlap in other characterizations of the fields. It is also not necessary to limit the field to only one field, or only one characterization of the field. The Office maintains that both disclosures are in the field of data visualization (whether for surgery or analyte monitoring).
Further, Haider is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor – how to improve data visualization, as described in ¶¶s 0006 and 0007 of Applicant’s specification as filed. Haider does not only have teachings related to “a computer assisted surgical suite,” but also on how to improve data visualization. Applicant lists some parameters that the surgeon can adjust, but ignores others. The surgeon can also adjust pre-set views, some of which include system defaults and some of which are customized by the user. The Office disagrees that an inventor of the claimed invention would not have logically considered a reference that deals with improving efficiency and quality of a task via improved visualization. All claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
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 ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408)918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791