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 .
Status of Claim(s)
Claims 1-12, 19-32 have been examined. Claims 31-32 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Dependent Claim 21 recites the method of claim 19. Claim 22 recites the method of claim 21. However, claim 19 recites a drug delivery device. Claim 21 is in a form of dependency of independent claim 19, whereas claim 22 is to depend from claim
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12, 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 13 recite(s) a system, which is within a statutory category (machine). Claim 19 recite(s) a drug delivery device, which is within a statutory category (machine.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A (MPEP2106.04-07), 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.
The limitations of Independent claims 1, 19 recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites the steps of
A method, comprising:
receiving a meal announcement, wherein the meal announcement is notification of ingestion of a meal;
estimating, in response to the announcement of ingestion of the meal, a carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin;
estimating an amount of insulin-on-board (IOB) based on insulin delivery history;
obtaining a current blood glucose measurement value;
estimating a correction insulin dosage using the estimated amount of IOB and the current blood glucose measurement value;
delivering a sum of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the correction insulin dosage upon completion of estimating the correction insulin dosage;
monitoring changes in blood glucose measurement value over time;
delivering basal insulin to bring blood glucose measurement value into a set blood glucose measurement range;
determining, within a preset time of receiving the meal announcement, whether a blood glucose measurement value obtained within the preset time has exceeded a hyperglycemia threshold or fallen below a hypoglycemia threshold; and
in response to determining the blood glucose measurement value obtained within the preset time has exceeded a hyperglycemia threshold or fallen below a hypoglycemia threshold, adapting the carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin by a predetermined factor.
The above underlined limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes a) mathematical concepts because these limitations could be performed by the researchers to estimate carbohydrate-compensation using the insulin-on-board…. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 19 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 1, because the only difference between claim 1 and claim 19 is that claim 1 recites a method, whereas claim 19 recites a drug delivery device.
Furthermore, the following depending claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Dependent claim 2-12 recite the application of different approaches for estimating carbohydrate-compensation dosage using an amount of insulin-on-board, predictive model, as being part of the abstract idea, and thus part of mental process.
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. As noted in MPEP2106.04-07, 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, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites
A method, comprising:
receiving a meal announcement, wherein the meal announcement is notification of ingestion of a meal;
estimating, in response to the announcement of ingestion of the meal, a carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin;
estimating an amount of insulin-on-board (IOB) based on insulin delivery history;
obtaining a current blood glucose measurement value;
estimating a correction insulin dosage using the estimated amount of IOB and the current blood glucose measurement value;
delivering a sum of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the correction insulin dosage upon completion of estimating the correction insulin dosage;
monitoring changes in blood glucose measurement value over time;
delivering basal insulin to bring blood glucose measurement value into a set blood glucose measurement range;
determining, within a preset time of receiving the meal announcement, whether a blood glucose measurement value obtained within the preset time has exceeded a hyperglycemia threshold or fallen below a hypoglycemia threshold; and
in response to determining the blood glucose measurement value obtained within the preset time has exceeded a hyperglycemia threshold or fallen below a hypoglycemia threshold, adapting the carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin by a predetermined factor. ((merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the limitation “receiving a meal announcement, wherein the meal announcement is notification of ingestion of a meal; estimating, in response to the announcement of ingestion of the meal, a carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin; estimating an amount of insulin-on-board (IOB) based on insulin delivery history; obtaining a current blood glucose measurement value; estimating a correction insulin dosage using the estimated amount of IOB and the current blood glucose measurement value”. The examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract (using a computer as tools to carry out the abstract idea as noted below, See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of ” delivering a sum of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the correction insulin dosage upon completion of estimating the correction insulin dosage; monitoring changes in blood glucose measurement value over time; delivering basal insulin to bring blood glucose measurement value into a set blood glucose measurement range; determining, within a preset time of receiving the meal announcement, whether a blood glucose measurement value obtained within the preset time has exceeded a hyperglycemia threshold or fallen below a hypoglycemia threshold; and in response to determining the blood glucose measurement value obtained within the preset time has exceeded a hyperglycemia threshold or fallen below a hypoglycemia threshold, adapting the carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin by a predetermined factor”, this is a post-solution activity. The examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of post solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea ((merely data gathering steps as noted, see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Particularly, claim 19 recites a memory, a processor (Spec.; page 0031), a controller (Spec.; para 0082), is not positively claimed in the claim as it defines the service but is claimed at such a high level of generality that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-12, the use of a insulin formular for carbohydrate compensation is not positively claimed in the claim as it defines the service but is claimed at such a high level of generality that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to implement and revise a wellbeing plan, a productivity, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1, 19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. (The Examiner notes the mere recitation of a memory, a controller, a processor, does not take the claim out of Mathematical concepts. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea)
The remaining dependent claim limitations are not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 19 do 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.
For claims 1, 19 limit the use of a server, a processor, a data processing system/device, etc.... The specification merely describes the use of these computing components. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Further the use of generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”).
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore, claims 1, 19 are being held patent ineligible under 35USC101.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 19-32, are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinas et al. (WO2018042147A1 hereinafter Vinas) in view of Mazlish et al. (US 20180200438A1 hereinafter Mazlish) of receiving the meal announcement, whether a blood glucose measurement
With respect to claim 1, Vinas teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a meal announcement, wherein the meal announcement is notification of ingestion of a meal (‘147; pages/lines 11/30-12/3: To tackle the perturbation introduced by the meals, a meal announcement strategy is used consisting of giving an insulin bolus calculated using a standard bolus calculator [Schmidt 2014] immediately before the ingestion of the meal.);
estimating, in response to the announcement of ingestion of the meal, a carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin (‘147; Abstract: where the system determines an insulin meal bolus taking into account an estimated amount of carbohydrates to be ingested, CHO);
Mazlish teaches
estimating an amount of insulin-on-board (IOB) based on insulin delivery history (‘438; Para 0007: determining a cumulative insulin on board (IOB) based on all the available insulin delivery segments being back-filled);
obtaining a current blood glucose measurement value (‘438; Para 0196: predictive models can use one or more current or recent blood glucose measurements (e.g., from blood glucose meter and/or a continuous glucose monitor);
estimating a correction insulin dosage using the estimated amount of IOB and the current blood glucose measurement value (‘438; Para 0007: adjusting the number of the available insulin delivery segments that are back-filled until one of the cumulative IOB based on the number of back-filled insulin delivery segments is equal to or less than the correction bolus, or the cumulative insulin of the number of back-filled insulin delivery segments is less than the correction bolus; and adjusting a baseline basal rate based on the back-filled insulin delivery segments, the baseline basal rate used for a diurnal time block related to at least a portion of the back-fill time.);
delivering a sum of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the correction insulin dosage upon completion of estimating the correction insulin dosage (‘438; Para 0060);
monitoring changes in blood glucose measurement value over time (‘438; Para 0040: the system 10 may include another glucose monitoring device that may utilize any of a variety of methods of obtaining information indicative of a PWD's blood glucose levels and transferring that information to reusable pump controller 200);
Vinas in view of Mazlish discloses
delivering basal insulin to bring blood glucose measurement value into a set blood glucose measurement range (‘147; page/lines 6/14-36);
determining, within a preset time of receiving the meal announcement, whether a blood glucose measurement value obtained within the preset time has exceeded a hyperglycemia threshold or fallen below a hypoglycemia threshold (‘147; Abstract: f the sensed glucose level, G, exceeds a threshold level, Gl, determining a total insulin amount delivered by the insulin pump over the postprandial time period and setting the bolus offset value, Bextra_new, to that total insulin amount); and
in response to determining the blood glucose measurement value obtained within the preset time has exceeded a hyperglycemia threshold or fallen below a hypoglycemia threshold, adapting the carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin by a predetermined factor (‘147; Abstract: if the sensed glucose level, G, is less than the threshold level, Gl, determining an offset between the sensed glucose level, G, and the glucose set point, Gsp, and using that offset to determine the bolus offset value, Bextra_new, adapting the compensation factor, ICR, over time using the determined the bolus offset value, Bextra_new, in order to minimize the bolus offset value for subsequent postprandial time periods in the LGS algorithm to reduce the insulin delivery if the forecasted glucose value falls below a predefined threshold (THl) and suspends the insulin delivery if it falls below a second lower predefined threshold (THl). To prevent rebound hyperglycaemia, the insulin suspension is limited to 90 minutes, after which time the insulin delivery is resumed to 50% for 30 minutes and after this period total suspension is activated again if the hypoglycaemic condition is satisfied. It is important to remark that the LGS algorithm does not affect the meal bolus insulin. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the ICAP controller as illustrated in page/lines 12/4-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the system Vinas with the technique of adjusting insulin delivery as taught by Mazlish in order to provide carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin ro the subject.
Claim 19 is rejected as the same reason with claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
estimating an updated correction insulin dosage using an updated estimate of an amount of IOB; and causing a sum of the adapted carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the updated correction insulin dosage to be delivered upon completion of the estimate of the updated correction insulin dosage (‘438; Paras 0035, 0044).
Claim 20 is rejected as the same reason with claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein estimating the carbohydrate- compensation dosage of insulin further comprises:
obtaining a user’s historical blood glucose measure values; obtaining the user’s estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage and average total daily insulin; input the user’s estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage and average total daily insulin to train the carbohydrate-compensation insulin dosage predictive model (‘147; Abstract); and
Claim 21 is rejected as the same reason with claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, the combined art teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising:
determining from the user’s carbohydrate-compensation dosage and average total daily insulin a typical bolus value based on a median bolus delivered in response to previous meal announcements; and using the median bolus delivered as a factor in the calculating the difference of a total of user’s carbohydrate-compensation dosage and average total daily insulin (‘428; Para 0060).
Claim 22 is rejected as the same reason with claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, the combined art teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising:
applying a kernel density estimation model to the user’s carbohydrate- compensation dosage and average total daily insulin a typical bolus value based on a median bolus delivered in response to previous meal announcements; and using an output of the kernel density estimation model as a factor in the calculating the difference of a total of user’s carbohydrate-compensation dosage and average total daily insulin (‘147; Page/lines 4/20-36).
Claim 23 is rejected as the same reason with claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein estimating a correction insulin dosage further comprises:
determining a difference between a current blood glucose measurement value and a target blood glucose setting; calculating a preliminary correction insulin dosage; adjusting the preliminary correction insulin dosage based on a trend of blood glucose measurement values received over a predetermined period of time to provide the estimated correction insulin dosage; and outputting the estimated correction insulin dosage for delivery to the user (‘438; Para 0100).
Claim 24 is rejected as the same reason with claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein delivering basal insulin to bring blood glucose measurement value into set blood glucose measurement range further comprises:
beginning delivery of a basal dosage of insulin after a set period of time after delivering the sum of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the correction insulin dosage.
Claim 25 is rejected as the same reason with claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein delivering basal insulin to bring blood glucose measurement value into set blood glucose measurement range further comprises: beginning delivery of a basal dosage of insulin modified based on a relaxed safety constraints after delivering the sum of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the correction insulin dosage (‘438; Paras 0094, 0121).
Claim 26 is rejected as the same reason with claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, when delivering basal insulin to bring blood glucose measurement value into set blood glucose measurement range, further comprising: beginning delivery of a basal dosage of insulin after delivering the sum of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the correction insulin dosage; and delivering a secondary bolus, a set period of time after delivering the sum of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin and the correction insulin dosage (‘147; page/lines 5/28-6/7).
Claim 27 is rejected as the same reason with claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adapting the carbohydrate- compensation dosage of insulin by a predetermined factor further comprises:
checking post-meal blood glucose by obtaining a blood glucose measurement value from a blood glucose sensor; determining whether the blood glucose measurement value is below a target blood glucose; and in response to the blood glucose measurement value being below the target blood glucose, decreasing the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage by a preset percentage value (‘147; Abstract).
Claim 28 is rejected as the same reason with claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, the combined art teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adapting the carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin by a predetermined factor further comprises:
delivering a partial dosage of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin, wherein the partial dosage and a reserved dosage when summed together include an amount of insulin in the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin (‘438; Para 0097);
checking post-meal blood glucose by obtaining a blood glucose measurement value from a blood glucose sensor; determining whether the blood glucose measurement value is less than a target blood glucose setting (‘437; Para 0239);
in response to the blood glucose measurement value being above the target blood glucose setting, determining whether the blood glucose measurement value is less than a predetermined blood glucose hyperglycemia threshold, and
in response to the blood glucose measurement value being greater than the predetermined blood glucose hyperglycemia threshold, delivering a reserve dosage of the estimated carbo carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin (‘438; Para 0094, 0105). O
Claim 29 is rejected as the same reason with claim 11.
f the reserve ether a subsequent b
With respect to claim 12, the combined art teaches the method of the claim 11, further comprising: after delivery of the reserve dosage the estimated carbo carbohydrate- compensation dosage of insulin, determining whether a subsequent blood glucose measurement value is less than the predetermined blood glucose hyperglycemia threshold, in response to the blood glucose measurement value being greater than the predetermined blood glucose hyperglycemia threshold, increasing the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage for future delivery by a predetermined percentage of the estimated carbohydrate-compensation dosage (‘438; Para 0217).
Claim 30 is rejected as the same reason with claim 12.
With respect to claim 31, the combined art teaches the drug delivery device of claim 19, wherein the processor, when estimating, in response to the announcement of ingestion of the meal, the carbohydrate- compensation dosage of insulin, is further operable to: limit the carbohydrate-compensation dosage of insulin to a percentage of the user's total daily insulin (‘438; Para 0246: a change to each user-specific dosage parameter (e.g., BBR, ISF, and CR) is at a predetermined percentage or value. For example, in some cases, each of BBR and ISF can be increased by 5%, 3%, or 1% and CR decreased by the same percent for every period where the amount of delivered basal insulin exceeds the BBR by at least 25%. In some cases, BBR and ISF can be decreased by 5%, 3%, or 1% and CR increased by the same percent for every period where the amount of delivered basal insulin exceeds the BBR by at least 25%. By setting each adjustment at a low level, methods and systems provided herein can eventually be personalized for the PWD without over adjusting the system based on an unusual day (e.g., to mitigate the risk of short term disturbances being mistaken for changes in physiological parameters). In some cases, the adjustment to CR, ISF, and BBR may be based on a relationship between CR, ISF, and BBR, rather than a fixed amount or percentage).
With respect to claim 32, the combined art teaches the drug delivery device of claim 19, wherein the processor, when receiving the meal announcement, is further operable to: provide a notification that does not require the user to input an estimate of the carbohydrates in the meal receive an input to a user interface coupled to the processor, wherein the input is a touch to the user interface; or receive a notification from an automated meal detection algorithm, wherein an estimate of the carbohydrates of the meal (‘438; Para 0135: the system may provide a notification of how close the therapeutic parameters are for the PWD as compared to the general probability distribution for the therapeutic parameters) .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remark filed 09/05/2025, the Applicant argued that
For claim rejection under 35 USC 101, the claimed features refer to delivering insulin, and then monitoring the effects of the delivered insulin on the users blood glucose measurement value(s). In Applicant's specification, nearly all uses of the word "deliver" or delivery" are with reference to delivery of insulin to the user. (See, for example, at least paragraphs [0066], last sentence, and paragraph [0078], penultimate sentence).
The above quoted, delivering steps that are substantially recited in each of independent claims 1, 9 and 19 are not "insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data." The above quoted features are positive limitations and that specifically recite delivering are also particular in that they integrate any alleged mere data gathering or alleged insignificant extra-solution activity recited in the claim into a practical application of delivering insulin (Remark, page 15).
In response to the Applicant’s argument, however, the additional limitations in claims 1, 19 do not integrate the above abstract idea into a practical application because there is no application or use of the abstract idea in any meaningful way. In particular, the claims recite the additional element , using the processor,…;to receive, to estimate, to deliver, to determine. The specification’s written description describes any specific computing components, but the suitable components (Spec.; Para 0021, Para 0028). These components encompass any number of suitable computer architectures. And thus, these components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. generic components, (Spec.; Para 0021, Para 0028). And thus, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
For claim rejection under 35 USC 103, Vinas/Mazlish does not disclose the use of meal announcement as it would further unduly delay subcutaneous insulin absorption. In contrast, claim 1 recites wherein the meal announcement is a notification of ingestion of a meal, which is different than administering a pre-meal bolus as in Vinas.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully gives broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited claims. In fact, Vinas discloses to tackle the perturbation introduced by the meals, a meal announcement strategy is used consisting of giving an insulin bolus calculated using a standard bolus calculator immediately before the ingestion of the meal.(‘147; pages/lines 11/30-12/3). Vinas further discloses where the system determines an insulin meal bolus taking into account an estimated amount of carbohydrates to be ingested (‘147; Abstract).
Mazlish further discloses an estimate of unacted carbohydrates can be determined using a Carbohydrates On Board (COB) calculation, which can be based on a decay function and announced meals. In some cases, predictive models used in methods and systems provided herein can also consider the non-carbohydrate components of a meal. In some cases, methods and systems provided herein can infer an amount of carbohydrates from an unannounced meal due to a spike in up-to-date blood glucose data (‘438; Para 0196).
Given broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited claims, the limitation of the meal announcement recited in Vinas/Mazlish is in a form of meal announcement as described in the recited claims.
Therefore, the examiner maintains rejection of all claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20210338932 A1; Nov. 4, 2021; Lintereur et al. ; Efficient confirmation of blood glucose measurements.
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 HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM 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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686