DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “the second graphical representation includes a projected glucose level of the patient that is of higher priority than content presented in the first graphical representation at least due to the projected glucose level being outside of the target range of glucose levels;” is not found in the specification. There is no discussion about “priority” in the specification at all. At best FIG. 8-9 and corresponding paragraphs, [0091] – [0097] discuss using different colors or arrows to indicate trend or range. There is no discussion about ranking the displays or information or how the content is ordered for display.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desborough et al. (US 2019/0015025 A1) (“Desborough”) in view of Bhavaraju et al. (US 2020/0272319 A1) (“Bhavaraju”).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 20, Desborough discloses A system for monitoring a patient, the system comprising (Abstract and entire document):
a memory ([0104]); and
processing circuitry coupled to the memory and configured to ([0104] – [0106]):
determine a current glucose level of the patient ([0055], [0058]);
determine a projected glucose level of the patient ([0055], [0058]);
determine a first graphical representation for display on a patient device (FIG. 3A, [0058], [0069]);
based on the projected glucose level of the patient being outside of a target range of glucose levels, determine a second graphical representation for display on a wearable device ([0075], [0023]),
wherein the second graphical representation is different from the first graphical representation in that: the first graphical representation includes previously measured glucose levels and the current glucose level ([0055], [0058], first display has historical and current glucose levels displayed), and
the second graphical representation includes a projected glucose level of the patient that is of higher priority than content presented in the first graphical representation at least due to the projected glucose level being outside of the target range of glucose levels ([0059], [0075], when it is detected glucose levels may go outside of a range a new display with a new color is displayed to show the projected levels with higher priority, see also at least [0076 – [0078] discussing emphasizing priority of display); and
output, by the patient device to the wearable device, an instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation ([0104] – [0106] and [0075]).
Desborough fails to disclose wherein the first display is on the patient device and the second display is on the wearable device
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bhavaraju teaches wherein the first display is on the patient device and the second display is on the wearable device ([0054 – [0065], user interface view versus glance view at the smartwatch, a more detailed view at the patient device, a quick alert view at the wearable)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device/system/method as taught by Desborough to include wherein the first display is on the patient device and the second display is on the wearable device as taught by Bhavaraju to show particular data ([0054], [0058]).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a rate of change of the projected glucose level; and cause the second graphical representation to include an indication of the rate of change of the projected glucose level as content included in the second graphical representation that is of higher priority than content included in the first graphical representation (Bhavaraju [0058]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 2, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the projected glucose level based on the current glucose level and based further on one or more previous glucose levels for the patient (Desborough [0071], [0075]).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 2, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein, to determine the second graphical representation, the processing circuitry is configured to determine a number of arrows to include in the second graphical representation based on the rate of change of the projected glucose level (Bhavaraju [0058]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein, to determine the second graphical representation, the processing circuitry is configured to determine a color to display the projected glucose level in the second graphical representation based on whether the projected glucose level is less than the target range, within the target range, or greater than the target range (Desborough [0075]).
Regarding claim 6, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the first graphical representation includes additional content not presented in the second graphical representation, wherein the additional content includes a time duration that has elapsed since the current glucose level of the patient was measured (Desborough [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 6, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the second graphical representation does not indicate the current glucose level or previously measured glucose levels (Desborough [0075]).
Regarding claim 8, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Desborough as modified further discloses further comprising a sensor device, wherein, to determine the current glucose level, the processing circuitry is configured to receive an indication of the current glucose level from the sensor device (Desborough [0021]).
Regarding claim 9, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 8, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the sensor device comprises one or more sensing elements configured to be inserted at least partially inside the patient (Desborough [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the second graphical representation to include one or more graphical icons indicating confidence intervals associated with the projected glucose level of the patient (Desborough [0079 - 0081]).
Regarding claim 11, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 10, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein, to output the instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation, the processing circuitry is configured to output the instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation indicating the projected glucose level concurrently with the patient device displaying the first graphical representation that includes a graph of the measured glucose levels (Bhavaraju [0054 – [0065], user interface view versus glance view at the smartwatch, a more detailed view at the patient device, a quick alert view at the wearable).
Regarding claim 12, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the patient device comprises a mobile phone (Desborough [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is arranged in the patient device (Desborough [0104] – [0106]).
Regarding claim 14, Desborough as modified discloses The system of claim 1, Desborough as modified further discloses wherein the wearable device comprises a smart watch (Desborough [0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harper et al. (US 2011/0193704 A1). Which discloses a rate of change determination and color indications and different displays depending on the information/glucose/rate.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A TOMBERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights