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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on 10/25/2025, amended claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16 and 20 are entered. Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s remarks and amendments with respect to the specification and claims have been fully considered and overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the previous Office Action mailed on 08/27/2025. The objections and rejections are withdrawn in view of amendments to claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim ___ and all claims dependent thereon, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0272319 A1 to Bhavaraju et al. (“Bhavaraju”) in view of US 2012/0245447 A1 to Karan et al. (“Karan”).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Bhavaraju discloses system and method for monitoring a patient (see Fig. 1 and abstract, “A system, a method, and a computer program product for providing wearable continuous blood glucose monitoring…”), the system comprising:
a memory (see Fig. 2 and [0048], memory 204); and
processing circuitry coupled to the memory (see Fig. 2 and [0048], “…processor 206 may execute a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) application 208 out of the memory 204”, processor 206 (processing circuitry) coupled to memory 204) and configured to:
determine a current glucose level of the patient (see Fig. 2 and [0049], “...CGM application 208 may be configured to control...an alert representative of a glucose state of a host-patient coupled to a glucose sensor”, determine a current glucose level of a patient);
determine a first graphical representation of the glucose level for display on a patient device based on the glucose level of the patient, wherein the first graphical representation indicates measured glucose levels including the current glucose level (see Fig. 5B and [0089]-[0092] , “…receiver 112 may present user interface view 550 that includes...additional information…smartwatch 199A may generate and present...a more detailed view, such as a historical log of glucose levels over time... smartphone 112 may receive the content...and present the handed off content...at the smartphone 112...”, see also [0057]-[0058], “...receiver 112, may send information, such as alerts... alert may be presented...and/or trigger a user interface view, such as a graphical representation of the host-patient's glucose state, an icon, a report, and/or other type of graphical representation...User interface view 380...gives the current glucose level at a glance”, receiver 112 (i.e., patient device) displays user interface view 550 (i.e., a first graphical representation) including historical glucose levels (i.e., measured glucose levels) and a current glucose level, based on the glucose state of a patient);
determine a second graphical representation of the glucose level for display on a wearable device based on a target range of glucose levels (see Fig. 5A-5B and [0091], “… the smartwatch 199A may generate and present... a certain user interface view, such as a glance view 380…”, see also [0057], “…alerts may include a glucose high state of the host-patient coupled to sensor 102, a glucose low state of the host-patient… and/or any other type of alert or information. The alert may be presented at the smartwatch 199A and/or trigger a user interface view...”, smartwatch 199A (i.e., wearable device) displays glance view 380 (i.e., second graphical representation) based on high and low glucose states of a patient (high and low states forming a target range of glucose levels)),
wherein the second graphical representation is different from the first graphical representation (see Fig. 5B and [0093], “…the content handed off to another device may be different”, user interface view 380 differs from user interface view 550) in that the first graphical representation indicates measured glucose levels including the current glucose level (see Fig. 5B and [0089]-[0092] , “…receiver 112 may present user interface view 550 that includes...additional information…such as a historical log of glucose levels over time...” see also [0057]-[0058], “...User interface view 380...gives the current glucose level at a glance”, receiver 112 (i.e., patient device) displays user interface view 550 (i.e., a first graphical representation) including historical glucose levels (i.e., measured glucose levels) and a current glucose level) and
the second graphical representation includes at least one graphical icon indicating a difference between the glucose level and the target range of glucose levels (see Figs. 5A-5B and [0058], “…the glance view also includes two downward arrows indicate the relative rate that the glucose level is falling… color, such as red, may also be used to indicate the low glucose level is below a threshold level”, icon of glance view 380 indicates a difference between measured glucose level and a target range of glucose levels by rate of change and threshold comparison); and
output, by the patient device to the wearable device, an instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation (see Fig. 2, Fig. 5B, and [0057], “…receiver 112, may send information, such as alerts to the sensor 102... alert may be presented at the smartwatch 199A and/or trigger a user interface view, such as a graphical representation of the host-patient's glucose state, an icon, a report, and/or other type of graphical representation…”, receiver 112 sends alert (instructions) to smartwatch 199 to display graphical representation).
However, Bhavaraju fails to disclose “processing circuitry coupled to the memory and configured to…determine a second graphical representation of the glucose level for display on a wearable device based on a target range of glucose levels and based on a projected glucose level at a future time...”.
Bhavaraju further teaches determining a graphical representation based on an estimated glucose level (see Bhavaraju Figs. 5A-5B and [0057], “…alert may be presented at the smartwatch 199A and/or trigger a user interface view, such as a graphical representation of the host-patient's glucose state, an icon, a report, and/or other type of graphical representation”. see also [0039], “…estimating analyte values, comparing estimated analyte values with time corresponding measured analyte values, analyzing a variation of estimated analyte values, such as estimated glucose values (EGVs), and/or the like”).
Karan teaches an analyte monitoring system with various graphical user interfaces (see abstract), predicting analyte levels at a future time (see [0142], “…indicate to the user the current and/or historical and/or and predicted future analyte levels as measured and predicted by the analyte monitoring system…”) and displaying user interfaces based on projected analyte levels (see Fig. 10J and [0303]-[0306], “… interface for indicating that a high analyte level is projected… displayed to indicate to the user that a high analyte level is projected based on the current sensor reading and trend, such as via a message, icon, symbol, etc.…”).
Bhavaraju discloses a patient monitoring system that determines a first graphical representation of a patient’s current glucose level to display on a patient device, and determines a second graphical representation of a patient’s glucose level based on a target range of glucose levels, to display on a wearable device (see [0089]-[0093] and [0057]-[0058]). However, Bhavaraju teaches determining graphical representations based on estimated analyte values and fails to explicitly disclose determining a projected glucose level at a future time. Karan teaches determining projected analyte levels at a future time and displaying user interfaces based on projected analyte levels (see [0303]-[0306]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhavaraju (to determine the second graphical representation based on a projected glucose level at a future time) for the purpose of alerting the user of a dangerous condition, as evidence by Karan (see [0303]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had predictable success combining Bhavaraju and Karan, since their teachings both relate to the same narrow field of endeavor, i.e., analyte monitoring systems using graphical user interfaces to communicate various bio-information to a user.
Additionally, Bhavaraju fails to explicitly disclose “... wherein the second graphical representation is different from the first graphical representation in that the first graphical representation indicates measured glucose levels including the current glucose level and the second graphical representation indicates the projected glucose level...”
Karan further teaches displaying user interfaces based on projected analyte levels (see Fig. 10J-10K and [0303]-[0306], “… interface for indicating that a high analyte level is projected… displayed to indicate to the user that a high analyte level is projected based on the current sensor reading and trend, such as via a message, icon, symbol, etc.…”).
Bhavaraju discloses a first graphical representation that is different from a second graphical representation (see Fig. 5C and [0093]), a first graphical representation indicating measured glucose levels including a current glucose level (see Fig. 5C and [0089]-[0093] and [0057]-[0058]), and a second graphical representation, including a graphical icon, indicating a difference between a glucose level and a target range of glucose levels (see Figs. 5A-5C and [0057]-[0058]), but fails to disclose a second graphical representation indicating a projected glucose level. Karan further teaches displaying icons indicating projected analyte levels (see Fig. 10J-10K and [0303]-[0306]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the second graphical representation of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination (to indicate projected glucose level) for the purpose of alerting the user of a dangerous condition, as evidence by Karan (see [0303]).
Additionally, Bhavaraju fails to disclose “...and the second graphical representation indicates the projected glucose level and includes at least one graphical icon indicating a difference between the projected glucose level and the target range of glucose levels...”.
Karan further teaches displaying differences between projected analyte levels and target ranges of analyte levels (see Fig. 10J-10K and [0303]-[0306], “Screen...may also include a graph...sensor readings that also indicates a target range...include a distinguishing element...for identifying the projected...reading on the graph...”, graphs 432b/436b show distinguishing elements 432f and 436f (i.e., projected analyte levels) appearing outside target ranges 432d/436d, indicating a difference between a projected analyte level and a target range of analyte levels).
Bhavaraju discloses a second graphical representation, including a graphical icon, indicating a difference between a glucose level and a target range of glucose levels (see Figs. 5A-5C and [0057]-[0058]), but fails to disclose a difference between a projected glucose level and a target range of glucose levels. Karan further teaches displaying differences between projected analyte levels and target ranges of analyte levels (see Fig. 10J-10K and [0303]-[0306]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the second graphical representation icon of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination (to indicate a difference between a projected glucose level and a target range of glucose levels) for the purpose of allowing a user to take corrective action to ensure an analyte level remains within an acceptable range based on predicted future analyte levels, as evidence by Karan (see [0142]).
Regarding claims 2 and 16: The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system and method of claims 1 and 15 respectively, as discussed above. However, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the graphical icon (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination, as described above) is determined based on a rate of change of the projected glucose level (of the (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination, as described above).
Bhavaraju further discloses displaying a graphical representation on a wearable device based on a rate of change of glucose levels (see Fig. 5A and [0058], “User interface view 380 may provide a so-called glance…glance view also includes two downward arrows indicate the relative rate that the glucose level is falling”).
Karan further teaches using graphical icons on a user interface to indicate a rate of change of a glucose level of a user (see Fig. 24 and [0461], “…various arrows and associated descriptions of the trending information conveyed…indicate that the user's glucose level is “Rising quickly”…may indicate that the user's glucose level is “Rising” or the equivalent…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the second graphical representation icon of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination (to determine a graphical icon based on a rate of change of a projected glucose level) for the purpose of conveying glucose trend information to a user, as evidence by Karan (see [0461]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17: The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system and method of claims 2/1 and 16/15 respectively, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the projected glucose level based on the glucose level and based further on one or more previous glucose levels for the patient (see Karan [0141] “determine future or anticipated analyte levels based on information obtained from analyte sensor 1101, e.g., the current analyte level, the rate of change of the analyte level, the acceleration of the analyte level change, and/or analyte trend information determined based on stored monitored analyte data providing a historical trend or direction of analyte level fluctuation as function time during monitored time period”).
Regarding claims 4 and 18: The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system and method of claims 2/1 and 16/15 respectively, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein, to determine the second graphical representation (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination, as described above), the processing circuitry is configured to determine a number of arrows to include in the second graphical representation (see Bhavaraju Fig. 5A and [0058], “…the glance view also includes two downward arrows indicate the relative rate that the glucose level is falling. More arrows would indicate a faster fall in the fall in the glucose level, while fewer arrows would indicate a slower rate of descent”, glance view (380) includes one or more arrows to indicate glucose level trend). .
Regarding claims 5 and 19: The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system and method of claims 2/1 and 16/15 respectively, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches the processing circuitry (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination, as described above) is configured to determine a color to display the projected glucose level (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination, as described above) in the second graphical representation (see Bhavaraju [0058], “…A color…used to indicate the low glucose level is below a threshold level, and a numerical value may also be presented as well”, color of glance view 380)
However, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination fails to disclose “…processing circuitry…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”.
Karan teaches determining a graphical feature (see Figs. 10J-10K, [0303] and [0305], indicator elements 432C and 436C) to include in a graphical representation (see Figs. 10J-10K, [0303]-[0306], screen 432 and screen 436), based on whether a projected glucose level for the patient is less than a target range, within a target range, or greater than a target range (see [0303]-[0306], “…sensor readings that also indicates a target range…”, indicator elements 432C and 436C (graphical features) identify projected glucose states and displayed based on a predetermined target range).
Therefore, 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 second graphical representation of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination (to determine a color to display the projected glucose level in based on whether the projected glucose level is less than the target range, within the target range, or greater than the target range) for the purpose of indicating to a user that a projected analyte level is outside of a predetermined range, as evidence by Karan (see [0303]).
Regarding claim 6: The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system and method of claim 1, as discussed above. However, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination fails to disclose “…wherein, the first graphical representation of the glucose level includes a time duration that has elapsed since the current glucose level of the patient was measured”.
Bhavaraju further discloses a historical log of glucose values (see Fig. 5B and [0089]-[0092] , “…user interface view 550 that includes...additional information…...a more detailed view, such as a historical log of glucose levels over time…”, user interface view 550 (i.e., first graphical representation) includes historical glucose levels measured over time).
Karan further teaches, in another embodiment, displaying analyte sensor scan results, and indicating to a user an amount of time remaining until another scan is performed (see [0265], “…display a No New Scan…also indicate the time remaining until another scan, as well as, enable the user to view the last Sensor Results screen…”).
The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches displaying a first graphical representation of a glucose level, including a current glucose level and a historical log of glucose values over time, but fails to explicitly disclose indicating a time elapsed since the current glucose level was measured. However, Karan further teaches indicating to a user on a display a time remaining until another glucose reading is taken. Although Karan teaches indicating a time remaining until a next analyte sensor measurement is taken rather than a time elapsed since an analyte level was measured, such modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 7: The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system and method of claim 6/1, as discussed above. However, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination fails to explicitly disclose “…wherein, the second graphical representation does not indicate the current glucose level or previously measured glucose levels”.
Bhavaraju further discloses a second graphical representation indicating a glucose level may present numerical values (see [0058], “…a numerical value may also be presented as well.”).
The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7/6/1, except for a second graphical representation that does not indicate a current glucose level or previously measured glucose values. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the second graphical representation of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination (to not include a numerical indication of a current glucose level), since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 8, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches a sensor device (see Bhavaraju Fig. 1 and [0039], “…the electronics unit 104 is releasably attachable to the sensor 102, which together form the on-skin sensor assembly 101”, sensor assembly 101), wherein, to determine the glucose level, the processing circuitry is configured to receive an indication of the glucose level from the sensor device (see Bhavaraju Fig. 1 and [0039], “…electronics unit 104 includes electronic circuitry associated with measuring and processing the continuous analyte sensor data…” electronics unit 104 (processor) receives glucose level from sensor 102).
Regarding claim 9, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system of claim 8/1, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein the sensor device comprises one or more sensing elements configured to be inserted at least partially inside the patient (see Bhavaraju [0036], “analyte sensor system 100 includes a transcutaneous glucose sensor, a subcutaneous glucose sensor, a continuous refillable subcutaneous glucose sensor, or a continuous intravascular glucose sensor, for example”, transcutaneous interpreted as inserted at least partially inside the patient).
Regarding claim 10, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein the patient device is configured to display the first graphical representation (see Bhavaraju Fig. 5B and [0089], “the receiver 112 may present user interface view 550 that includes, due to the larger display area, additional information when compared to user interface view 380”, receiver 112 (patient device) displays user interface view 550 (first graphical representation)).
Regarding claim 11: The Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system and method of claim 10/1, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein, to output the instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation, the processing circuitry (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination) is configured to output the instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation indicating the projected glucose level (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination) with the patient device displaying the first graphical representation that includes a graph of the measured glucose levels (see Bhavaraju Fig. 2 and [0048], “…mobile device 202 may also include…an output interface 220 to output data to other devices… the smartwatch 199A may be implemented as described with respect to FIG. 2”, mobile device (patient device) outputs data to smartwatch 199 (wearable device). See also [0205], “…presenting a user interface view representative of the glucose state; receiving a request to allow a handoff of the presented user interface view to another device; and presenting, in response to the handoff, the user interface view at another device”) see also [0091], “…more detailed view, such as a historical log of glucose levels over time…”), initiate a handoff (i.e., output instructions) for a wearable device to display a user interface view (i.e., a second graphical representation) when a patient device displays a user interface view including a historical log of glucose values (i.e., a graph of measured glucose values)).
However, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination fails to explicitly disclose “…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”.
Although the Bhavaraju/Karan fails to explicitly disclose concurrent display of a second graphical representation of a projected glucose level when a patient device displays a first graphical representation, including measured glucose levels over time, such modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 12, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein the patient device comprises a mobile phone (see Bhavaraju Fig. 1 and [0040], “…device 112 comprises a smartphone 112…”, smart phone interpreted as mobile phone).
Regarding claim 13, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is arranged in the patient device (see Bhavaraju Fig. 2 and [0048], “…mobile device 202 may include at least one memory 204 and at least one processor 206”, processor 206 arranged inside mobile device).
Regarding claim 14, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above. The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein the wearable device comprises a smart watch (see Bhavaraju Fig. 1 and [0031], “…a host-patient may wear a sensor assembly 101 as well as smartwatch 199A”, smartwatch 199A).
Regarding independent claim 20: Bhavaraju discloses a computer readable storage medium (see [0052], “storage 210 may be any non-transitory computer readable media”, storage 210) storing instructions (see [0052], “…software and/or firmware component of the CGM application 208 may be stored in storage 210 available to the mobile device 202”, CGM application 208) that, when executed, cause processing circuitry to:
determine a measured glucose level of a patient (see Fig. 2 and [0049], “CGM application 208…receive an alert representative of a glucose state of a host-patient coupled to a glucose sensor”, determines a glucose level, measured for a patient);
determine a first graphical representation of a glucose level for display on a patient device based on the measured glucose level of the patient, wherein the first graphical representation indicates measured glucose levels including the measured glucose level and previously measured glucose levels (see Fig. 5B and [0089]-[0092] , “…receiver 112 may present user interface view 550 that includes...additional information…smartwatch 199A may generate and present...a more detailed view, such as a historical log of glucose levels over time... smartphone 112 may receive the content...and present the handed off content...at the smartphone 112...”, see also [0057]-[0058], “...receiver 112, may send information, such as alerts... alert may be presented...and/or trigger a user interface view, such as a graphical representation of the host-patient's glucose state, an icon, a report, and/or other type of graphical representation...User interface view 380...gives the current glucose level at a glance”, receiver 112 (i.e., patient device) displays user interface view 550 (i.e., a first graphical representation) including historical glucose levels (i.e., measured and previously measured glucose levels) and a current glucose level, based on the glucose state of a patient); ;
determine a number of arrows to include in a second graphical representation of the glucose level…wherein the number of arrows is greater than one (see Fig. 5A and [0058], “…glance view also includes two downward arrows indicate the relative rate that the glucose level is falling. More arrows would indicate a faster fall in the fall in the glucose level, while fewer arrows would indicate a slower rate of descent”, glance view 380 (i.e., second graphical representation) includes one or more arrows);
determine the second graphical representation of the glucose level for display on a wearable device (see Fig. 5A-5B and [0091], “… the smartwatch 199A may generate and present... a certain user interface view, such as a glance view 380…”, see also [0057], “…alerts may include a glucose high state of the host-patient coupled to sensor 102, a glucose low state of the host-patient… and/or any other type of alert or information. The alert may be presented at the smartwatch 199A and/or trigger a user interface view...”, smartwatch 199A (i.e., wearable device) displays glance view 380 (i.e., second graphical representation) based on high and low glucose states of a patient (high and low states forming a target range of glucose levels)),
wherein the second graphical representation is different from the first graphical representation (see Fig. 5B and [0093], “…the content handed off to another device may be different”, user interface view 380 differs from user interface view 550) in that the first graphical representation indicates measured glucose levels and the second graphical representation indicates the projected glucose level and includes the determined number of arrows; and
output an instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation (see Fig. 2, Fig. 5B, and [0057], “…receiver 112, may send information, such as alerts to the sensor 102... alert may be presented at the smartwatch 199A and/or trigger a user interface view, such as a graphical representation of the host-patient's glucose state, an icon, a report, and/or other type of graphical representation…”, receiver 112 sends alert (instructions) to smartwatch 199 to display graphical representation).
However, Bhavaraju fails to disclose “…determine a number of arrows to include in a second graphical representation of the glucose level based on whether a projected glucose level is less than a target range, within the target range, or greater than the target range…”.
Bhavaraju further teaches determining a graphical representation based on an estimated glucose level (see Bhavaraju Figs. 5A-5B and [0057], “…alert may be presented at the smartwatch 199A and/or trigger a user interface view, such as a graphical representation of the host-patient's glucose state, an icon, a report, and/or other type of graphical representation”. see also [0039], “…estimating analyte values, comparing estimated analyte values with time corresponding measured analyte values, analyzing a variation of estimated analyte values, such as estimated glucose values (EGVs), and/or the like”).
Karan teaches an analyte monitoring system with various graphical user interfaces (see abstract), predicting analyte levels at a future time (see [0142], “…indicate to the user the current and/or historical and/or and predicted future analyte levels as measured and predicted by the analyte monitoring system…”) and displaying user interfaces based on projected analyte levels (see Fig. 10J and [0303]-[0306], “… interface for indicating that a high analyte level is projected… displayed to indicate to the user that a high analyte level is projected based on the current sensor reading and trend, such as via a message, icon, symbol, etc.…”). Karan further teaches displaying differences between projected analyte levels and target ranges of analyte levels (see Fig. 10J-10K and [0303]-[0306], “Screen...may also include a graph...sensor readings that also indicates a target range...include a distinguishing element...for identifying the projected...reading on the graph...”, graphs 432b/436b show distinguishing elements 432f and 436f (i.e., projected analyte levels) appearing outside target ranges 432d/436d, indicating a difference between a projected analyte level and a target range of analyte levels).
Bhavaraju discloses a second graphical representation, including at least one arrow indicating a difference between a glucose level and a target range of glucose levels (see Figs. 5A-5C and [0057]-[0058]), but fails to disclose a difference between a projected glucose level and a target range of glucose levels. Karan further teaches displaying differences between projected analyte levels and target ranges of analyte levels (see Fig. 10J-10K and [0303]-[0306]).
Therefore, 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 second graphical representation icon of Bhavaraju (to indicate a difference between a projected glucose level and a target range of glucose levels) for the purpose of allowing a user to take corrective action to ensure an analyte level remains within an acceptable range based on predicted future analyte levels, as evidence by Karan (see [0142]).
Additionally, Bhavaraju fails to disclose “…wherein the second graphical representation is different from the first graphical representation in that the first graphical representation indicates measured glucose levels and the second graphical representation indicates the projected glucose level and includes the determined number of arrows”.
Karan further teaches displaying user interfaces based on projected analyte levels (see Fig. 10J-10K and [0303]-[0306], “… interface for indicating that a high analyte level is projected… displayed to indicate to the user that a high analyte level is projected based on the current sensor reading and trend, such as via a message, icon, symbol, etc.…”).
Bhavaraju discloses a first graphical representation that is different from a second graphical representation (see Fig. 5C and [0093]), a first graphical representation indicating measured glucose levels including a current glucose level (see Fig. 5C and [0089]-[0093] and [0057]-[0058]), and a second graphical representation, including at least one arrow, indicating a difference between a glucose level and a target range of glucose levels (see Figs. 5A-5C and [0057]-[0058]), but fails to disclose a second graphical representation indicating a projected glucose level. Karan further teaches displaying icons indicating projected analyte levels (see Fig. 10J-10K and [0303]-[0306]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the second graphical representation of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination (to indicate projected glucose level) for the purpose of alerting the user of a dangerous condition, as evidence by Karan (see [0303]).
Additionally, Bhavaraju fails to disclose “…output an instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation concurrently with the patient device displaying the first graphical representation”.
The Bhavaraju/Karan combination further teaches wherein, to output the instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation, the processing circuitry (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination) is configured to output the instruction to cause the wearable device to display the second graphical representation indicating the projected glucose level (of the Bhavaraju/Karan combination) with the patient device displaying the first graphical representation that includes a graph of the measured glucose levels (see Bhavaraju Fig. 2 and [0048], “…mobile device 202 may also include…an output interface 220 to output data to other devices… the smartwatch 199A may be implemented as described with respect to FIG. 2”, mobile device (patient device) outputs data to smartwatch 199 (wearable device). See also [0205], “…presenting a user interface view representative of the glucose state; receiving a request to allow a handoff of the presented user interface view to another device; and presenting, in response to the handoff, the user interface view at another device”) see also [0091], “…more detailed view, such as a historical log of glucose levels over time…”), initiate a handoff (i.e., output instructions) for a wearable device to display a user interface view (i.e., a second graphical representation) when a patient device displays a user interface view including a historical log of glucose values (i.e., a graph of measured glucose values)).
However, the Bhavaraju/Karan combination fails to explicitly disclose “…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”.
Although the Bhavaraju/Karan fails to explicitly disclose concurrent display of a second graphical representation of a projected glucose level when a patient device displays a first graphical representation, including measured glucose levels over time, such modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/25/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered, but are moot in view of the current combination of references necessitated by amendment.
In particular, Applicant argues that Bhavaraju and Karan, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “…in that the first graphical representation indicates measured glucose levels including the current glucose level and the second graphical representation indicates the projected glucose level…” as claimed (see pg. 8-9 of Remarks). Applicant further cites portions of Karan further arguing that Karan teaches a single display including both a graph or sensor readings and a projected analyte level rather than displaying a second graphical representation on a wearable device (different from a first graphical representation displayed on a patient device) indicating a projected glucose level, as claimed.
This argument is considered not persuasive in view of the treatment of independent claims 1, 15, and 20 above.
Therefore, claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA P NOVAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/ALYSSA PAIGE NOVAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ERIC J MESSERSMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791