DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed 01/28/2026 has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 6-10 are cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 1-5 and 11-25 are currently pending.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn as discussed in Election of Species of the Office action mailed 02/11/2025.
Claims 1-5 and 21-25 are herein under examination.
Claims 1-5 and 21-25 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims domestic benefit as a continuation of PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2019/064146, filed 12/3/2019, which claims domestic benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/781,284, filed 12/18/2018. The claims to domestic benefit are acknowledged for claims 1-5 and 21-25. As such, the effective filing date for claims 1-5 and 21-25 is 12/18/2018.
Withdrawn Rejections
35 USC 112(a)
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
35 USC 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-3 and 21-23 over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,310,724 B2 in view of Goldring et al. is withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 01/28/2026 and approved 25 Feb. 2026.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 23 is withdrawn in view of claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC 112(b)
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 1-5 and 21-25 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.
This rejection is newly recited as necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 1, line 5, recites the phrase “the optical transmissions” which lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, provide antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 13-14, recites “the optical transmissions at certain wavelengths” which lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, provide antecedent basis.
Furthermore, claims 2-5 are also rejected because they depend on claim 1, which is rejected, and because they do not resolve the issue of indefiniteness.
Claim 21, line 5, recites the phrase “the optical transmissions” which lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, provide antecedent basis.
Furthermore, claims 22-25 are also rejected because they depend on claim 21, which is rejected, and because they do not resolve the issue of indefiniteness.
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 1-5 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and a natural phenomenon without significantly more.
Any newly recited portion herein is necessitated by claim amendment.
Step 1:
Step 1 asks whether the claims recite statutory subject matter. In the instant application, claims 1-5 recite a method and claims 21-25 recite an apparatus. As such, these claims recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims that recite statutory subject matter are analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1 to determine if they recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomena. The instant claims recite the following limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exception:
Claim 1 recites “determining a radiant power (Io) of the optical transmissions from the portable tunable laser light source device and incident on the fluid sampling medium; translating the accumulated digital data of the raw optical measurements (IT) to calibrated optical transmission measurements (A) based on the radiant power (Io); providing the calibrated optical transmission measurements to at least one chemometric model to obtain an estimate of a concentration of a parameter of interest; mapping internal transmittance at a first wavelength and matching the mapped internal transmittance to a lookup table entry;”
Claim 2 recites “preprocessing the calibrated optical transmission measurements, wherein the calibrated optical transmission measurements provided to the at least one chemometric model comprise the preprocessed calibrated optical transmission measurements.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the translation is performed in accordance with A = -log10(IT/Io).”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the parameter of interest comprises at least one of osmolality, sodium, potassium, urea, uric acid, total protein, glucose, albumin, creatinine, bilirubin, urobilinogen, chloride, calcium, magnesium, phosphate, RBC, and leukocytes”
Claim 5 recites “wherein the parameter of interest comprises at least one of pregnancy hormone, THC, THC metabolites, cocaine, cocaine metabolites, bacteria, and toxins produced by bacteria.”
Claim 21 recites “determine a radiant power (Io) of the optical transmissions from the portable tunable laser light source device and incident on the fluid sampling medium; translate the accumulated digital data of the raw optical measurements (IT) to calibrated optical transmission measurements (A) based on the radiant power (Io); provide the calibrated optical transmission measurements to at least one chemometric model to obtain an estimate of a concentration of a parameter of interest; map internal transmittance at a first wavelength and matching the mapped internal transmittance to a lookup table entry;”
Claim 22 recites “… preprocess the calibrated optical transmission measurements, wherein the calibrated optical transmission measurements provided to the at least one chemometric model comprise the preprocessed calibrated optical transmission measurements.”
Claim 23 recites “… translate the accumulated digital data of the raw optical measurements (IT) to the calibrated optical transmission measurements (A) in accordance with A = -log10(IT/Io).”
Claim 24 recites “wherein the parameter of interest comprises at least one of osmolality, sodium, potassium, urea, uric acid, total protein, glucose, albumin, creatinine, bilirubin, urobilinogen, chloride, calcium, magnesium, phosphate, RBC, and leukocytes.”
Claim 25 recites “wherein the parameter of interest comprises at least one of pregnancy hormone, THC, THC metabolites, cocaine, cocaine metabolites, bacteria, and toxins produced by bacteria.”
Limitations reciting a mental process.
The above cited limitations in claims 1-3 and 21-23 are recited at such a high level of generality that they equate to a mental process because they are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), which the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. The paragraph below discusses the limitations in these claims that recite a mental process under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
The BRI of determining a radiant power incident of optical transmissions of a light source includes writing down an incident light value after putting a blank in a spectrophotometer. The BRI of translating accumulated raw optical measurements to calibrated optical transmission measurements based on the radiant power includes performing the calculation of the equation recited in claims 3 and 23. The BRI of providing the calibrated optical transmission measurement to a chemometric model to obtain an estimated concentration of a parameter of interest includes inputting data into an equation, such as a multiple linear regression or partial least square regression as stated in the specification in para. [24]. A human is capable of mapping and matching values given reference data and a lookup table entry. A human is capable of preprocessing the calibrated transmission measurements because the BRI of this limitation includes performing steps of an algorithm, such as by averaging or using a standard normal variate as stated in the specification in para. [24].
Limitations reciting a mathematical concept.
The above cited limitations in claims 1-3 and 21-23 recite a mathematical concept because they are similar to the concepts of organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), which the courts have identified as mathematical concepts. The paragraph below discusses the limitations in these claims that recite a mathematical concept under their BRI.
The BRI of translating the digital data of the raw optical measurements to calibrated optical transmission measurements based on an operation condition includes performing calculations using a formula, especially because claims 3 and 23 recite the specific formula that is used for this conversion. The BRI of using a chemometric model to obtain an estimate of a parameter includes performing calculations using a formula to derive a numerical value. This interpretation is reinforced by the specification in para. [24] that recites using chemometric models such as multiple linear regression, principal component regression, and partial least square regression. The BRI of preprocessing the calibrated optical transmission measurements includes using a function and/or a mathematical algorithm to perform calculations to derive a numerical value. This interpretation is reinforced by the specification in para. [24] that recites using averaging, standard normal variate, baseline correction, and multiplicative scatter correction as preprocessing algorithms. The BRI of determining a radiant power of optical transmissions includes dividing the optical power that pass through a sample by transmittance.
Limitations included in the recited judicial exception.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 4-5 and 24-25, these limitations are included in the judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 21 of obtaining an estimate of a parameter of interest because they limit what the parameter of interest is but do not change the fact that the parameter of interest is still part of the recited judicial exception.
As such, claims 1-5 and 21-25 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Additional Elements:
Once limitations have been identified that recite a judicial exception, the claims are evaluated for additional elements. The additional elements are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 then Step 2B. The instant claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites “transmitting an optical transmission from a portable tunable laser light source device at a certain wavelength through fluid in a fluid sampling medium; measuring by a photodetector the optical transmissions to generate raw optical measurements; accumulating digital data of the raw optical measurements; periodically receiving, from a gateway via a communication link, the accumulated digital data of the raw optical measurements by the photodetector of the optical transmissions at certain wavelengths through the fluid in the fluid sampling medium; and reporting an average of the matched lookup table entry and the estimate from the at least one chemometric model as the concentration of the parameter of interest.”
Claim 21 recites “An apparatus for implementing a portable system for performing non-invasive urinalysis in real time, comprising: a portable tunable laser light source device configured to transmit a transmission at a certain wavelength through fluid in a fluid sampling medium; a photodetector configured to measure the optical transmissions to generate raw optical measurements; a gateway configured to periodically receive accumulated digital data of the raw optical measurements; and one or more processors in communication with the gateway and configured to: accumulate the digital data; and report an average of the matched lookup table entry and the estimate from the at least one chemometric model as the concentration of the parameter of interest.”
Claims 22-23 recite “wherein the one or more processors are …”
These above recited additional elements are analyzed below under both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a computer, technology, or technical field (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.5(a)), require a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), implement the recited judicial exception with a particular machine that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), nor provide some other meaningful limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Rather, the claims include limitations that equate to an equivalent of the words “apply it” and/or to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims.
Regarding the above cited limitation in claims 21-25 of an apparatus comprising a gateway and one or more processors, these limitations are part of a generic computing system such as a computer connected to a router via WIFI. Therefore, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1 and 21 of transmitting optical transmission using a laser, measuring optical transmission with a photodetector, accumulating data from a photodetector, receiving data from a gateway, and reporting data, these limitations equate to insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting because they gather data to perform the judicial exception then output the results of the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
As such, claims 1-5 and 21-25 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: No).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these claims recite additional elements that equate to instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way and/or in a generic computing environment (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims.
Regarding claims 21-25 of an apparatus comprising a gateway and one or more processors, these limitations are part of a generic computing system such as a computer connected to a router via WIFI. Therefore, these limitations equate to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1 and 21 of accumulating data from a photodetector, receiving data from a gateway, and reporting data, BRI of these limitations includes a generic computing system receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as WURC limitation of a generic computing system in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Regarding claims 1 and 21 of a portable tunable laser light source, a photodetector, a gateway, one or more processors, and generic computer function/components, when these limitations are viewed in combination, they equate to WURC as taught below by Goldring et al. (“Goldring”; US 2018/0085003 A1; previously cited on PTO892 mailed 10/28/2025), Coates (US 2007/0084990 A1; newly cited), and Mucci et al. (“Mucci”; WO 2014/004948 A1; newly cited).
Goldring discloses a spectrometer system 100 comprising a hand-held communication device 110 coupled to a hand-held spectrometer 102 to measure urine in a test tube such as a catheter wherein measurements are stored in memory 107 [10][75][391][406]. The hand-held communication device contains a wireless gateway which receives data from the spectrometer 102 [226]. The spectrometer performs wavelength multiplexing where a plurality of wavelengths illuminates an object to measure one or more spectra [10].
Coates disclose a portable spectrometer [10] containing a linear variable filter than offers spectral ranges of 360 nm to 700 nm and 600 nm to 1110 nm [11]. Light source is a laser [38]. The device contains hardware communications to PC and wireless communications via Bluetooth [11]. It contains a sampling chamber where fluid is measured [15] and microprocessors that receive output from the spectral sensing element and performs data analysis [13].
Mucci discloses a handheld spectroscopy device comprising an infrared light source that emits wavelengths, a liquid sample test port, a sample tray for receiving a liquid sample and a data processor connects to the infrared light to receive/detect/quantify the compounds in the liquid sample in the spectral data (claim 1). The infrared range is 650nm to 1500nm (claim 2) [11]. The spectrometer can be connected wirelessly to a mobile for data analysis transmission [2] [10].
When these additional elements are considered individually and in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept because they all equate to WURC functions/components of a generic computer and equate to a WURC of a portable spectrometer device as taught above by Goldring, Coates, and Mucci. Therefore, these additional elements do not transform the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No).
As such, claims 1-5 and 21-25 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 21 integrate any recited judicial exception with a particular machine (pg. 8, sec. 35 USC 101 of Applicant’s remarks). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
The portable tunable laser light source device and photodetector are not particular machines that integrate the recited judicial exceptions in claims 1 and 21. Rather, the light source and photodetector provide insignificant, extra solution activity of necessary data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(b)(III) discusses how a machine used for data gathering does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldring et al. (“Goldring”; US 2018/0085003 A1; effective filing date 07/27/2016; previously cited on PTO892 mailed 10/28/2025) in view of Andor (An introduction to Absorption; published online 2017; previously cited PTO892 mailed 02/11/2025), Ciurczak et al. (“Ciurczak”; US 2005/0033127 A1; previously cited on PTO892 mailed 06/30/2025), Luna et al. (“Luna”; In Comprehensive analytical chemistry, vol. 80, pp. 165-194. Elsevier, 2018; published online 04/30/2018; previously cited on PTO892 mailed 10/28/2025) and Blood Sugar Charts (“Printable Blood Sugar Charts”; published 2016; previously cited on PTO892 mailed 06/30/2025).
Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
The bold and italicized text below are the limitations of the instant claims, and the italicized text serves to map the prior art onto the instant claims.
Claims 1 and 21:
(claim 1) transmitting an optical transmission from a portable tunable laser light source device at a certain wavelength through fluid in a fluid sampling medium;
(claim 21) transmitting an optical transmission from a portable tunable laser light source device at a certain wavelength through fluid in a fluid sampling medium:
Goldring discloses a handheld optical spectrometer system 100 that illuminates a sample, such as urine in a catheter, to measure one or more spectra [212] (Figures 1 and 31A-B) (abstract). The spectrometer 100 contains a laser light source that emits different wavelengths and can perform wavelength multiplexing (tunable laser light source) [176] [235].
(claim 1) measuring by a photodetector the optical transmissions to generate raw optical measurements;
(claim 21) measuring by a photodetector the optical transmissions to generate raw optical measurements;
Goldring teaches the photodetector of the spectrometer receives multiplexed optical signals from the sample and acquires raw intensity data [82] [335].
(claim 1) accumulating digital data of the raw optical measurements;
(claim 21) a gateway configured to periodically receive accumulated digital data of the raw optical measurements;
Goldring uses the spectrometer 102 to compress raw intensity data 400 (digital data of the raw optical measurements), transmit the compressed raw data signal 405 to Bluetooth communication circuitry 104 for encryption, then transmits the compressed encrypted raw data signal 410 via Bluetooth to a handheld device 110 [335]. The handheld device communicates with the spectrometer via wireless communication gateway [31][171][226]. Data can be transmitted at certain intervals (periodically) [338].
(claim 21) one or more processors in communication with the gateway and configured to: accumulate the digital data;
Goldring teaches the handheld device 110 is in wireless communication 116 with a cloud-based server 118 which contains a processor [343].
(claims 1 and 21) determine a radiant power (Io) of the optical transmissions from the portable tunable laser light source device and incident on the fluid sampling medium; translate the accumulated digital data of the raw optical measurements (IT) to calibrated optical transmission measurements (A) based on the radiant power (Io);
Goldring measures transmission, absorbance or reflectance [237][292][404] and transmits spectral data to a cloud server for calibration [43] [343-344].
However, Goldring does not determine a radiant power incident on the medium and does not teach translating IT to A based on Io.
Andor teaches an introduction to Absorption Spectroscopy (title). For absorbance spectroscopy the Beer-Lambert-Bouguer law is used for a single absorber and is defined as: A = -log10(IT/Io) = -dc, where: IT is the monochromatic radiant power transmitted by the absorbing medium, Io is the monochromatic radiant power incident on the medium, and i is the internal transmittance (i= IT/Io) (pg. 2, para. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to have calibrated the spectral data of Goldring used to determine concentration of a component [347] with Beer’s law because Andor teaches that Beer’s law determines concentration of a substance (pg. 2, para. 4 of Andor). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both Goldring and Andor calibrate spectral data to determine concentration of substances.
(claims 1 and 21) provide the calibrated optical transmission measurements to at least one chemometric model to obtain an estimate of a concentration of a parameter of interest;
Goldring inputs captured spectra into chemometric models [403] and measures a substance’s concentration from analyzed spectrum data [347].
However, Goldring does not input calibrated spectral data into a chemometric model to obtain an estimate of a concentration of a parameter of interest.
Luna teaches application of chemometric methods coupled with spectroscopy to predict physiochemical properties (title). Luna recites “Chemometric methods are capable of associating samples in groups according to the similarities observed in the spectra and eventually to predict the concentration of a given substance or a property” (pg. 166, para. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to have modified the method of Goldring for measuring concentration of a substance using spectral data by using a chemometric model to measure the concentration as taught by Luna. Luna teaches the motivation for doing so because their methods obtained 100% accuracy in concentration predictions (pg. 167, para. 1.). Further motivation is taught by Luna who state that chemometric models can be used in the field to provide real-time analysis (pg. 166, last para.). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Luna teaches that the chemometric model uses calibrated spectral data (sec. 4.1 and 5.2) and because Goldring uses chemometric models and calibrated spectral data to perform downstream analyses [369] [371] [403].
(claims 1 and 21) map internal transmittance at a first wavelength and matching the mapped internal transmittance to a lookup table entry; and report an average of the matched lookup table entry and the estimate from the at least one chemometric model as the concentration of the parameter of interest.
Goldring uses chemometric models [369] and determines concentration of a substance in a sample (the estimate from the at least one chemometric model as the concentration of the parameter of interest) [347].
However, Goldring does not map internal transmittance at a first wavelength, match the mapped internal transmittance to a look up table, or report an average of the matched lookup table entry.
Andor teaches calculating internal transmittance at a given wavelength (map internal transmittance at a first wavelength) (pg. 1, para. 2) (pg. 2, para. 3).
However, Andor does not teach matching the mapped internal transmittance to a lookup table entry or reporting an average of the matched lookup table entry.
Ciurczak teaches modeling equations for predicting amount of blood glucose in a sample [122]. Ciurczak discloses “If the spectral scan falls within the range of the modeling equation, a blood glucose value is predicted and the predicted blood glucose level is output to the patient” [34]. Ciurczak measures the mean difference between predicted values and corresponding reference values of blood glucose [107] [195].
Blood Glucose Charts discloses a chart of mean blood glucose levels, wherein each mean range contains suggested actions to be taken if blood glucose levels reach a specific value (Chart 15 on pg. 5).
When Goldring, Andor, Ciurczak, and Blood Glucose Charts are taken together, they suggest that a predicted blood glucose value at a particular wavelength can be compared to table of reference mean blood glucose levels, wherein the predicted value is matched to a reference value in the table.
It would have been prima facia obvious to have modified the method of measuring a substance from spectral data in Goldring by comparing measured blood glucose concentrations to reference ranges, as taught by Ciurczak, wherein the reference ranges contain mean values of blood glucose levels as taught by Blood Sugar Charts. The motivation for doing so is to acquire a suggested actions to be taken if a predicted value is within a specific range, as taught by Blood Sugar Charts. Further motivation is taught by Ciurczak who states “The majority of patients with Type I diabetes, as well as people with Type II diabetes or diagnosed as pre-diabetic, need to frequently monitor their blood glucose levels, establishing an individual blood glucose profile in order to adjust diet, medication or exercise, or in order to lower the blood glucose while avoiding hypoglycemia (low blood-sugar)” [17]. This motivation aligns with Goldring who generates actionable insights particularly for patients with diabetes [362] and sends alerts when a variable exceeds a predefined threshold, such as sugar levels [405].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for combining Goldring and Andor with Ciurczak and Blood Sugar Charts because these references are related to monitoring substances from spectral data and because comparing predicted values to reference values for validation or for recommending a medical intervention is a common practice. Additionally, Goldring teaches comparing spectral data to a database [22].
Claims 2 and 22:
Goldring discloses that the cloud server can transform the signals from the spectrometer into spectral data, wherein additional pre-processing of the spectrum is performed such as noise reduction [339]. The pre-processed data, which includes calibrated data [41-43], is then used by the server to perform various data analysis algorithms [339], which includes being inputted into a chemometric model [369].
Claims 3 and 23:
Andor teaches these limitations above. The case for prima facia obviousness is discussed above in the rejection for claims 1 and 21.
Claims 4-5 and 24-25:
Goldring discloses that bacteria, sodium, potassium, creatine and urea may be detected from the spectral data [60] [73] [221] [414].
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose a tunable portable laser light source device (pg. 9, sec. 35 USC 103 of Applicant’s remarks). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
As taught in the rejection above in claims 1 and 21, Goldring teaches a handheld spectrometer which contains a laser light source (Figures 1 and 2) [297]. The wavelength of the light source can be adjusted (abstract) [10] [176].
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah A. Auger whose telephone number is (703)756-4518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685