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 .
1. This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed 5/26/2026.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5-24, 26 and 30-36 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10, 24 and 32-33 are independent claims. In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-18, 21, 24, 26 and 30-34 were amended, claims 2, 25 and 27-29 were canceled and claims 35 and 36 were added. This action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-24, 26 and 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayter et al (“Hayter” US 2021/0030323).
Regarding claim 1, Hayter discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, a user input to retroactively log a meal to a position on a historical glucose graph (see paragraph [0094]; e.g., “a meal event can be logged by the user at 302. The user can input meal information directly into reader device 120 (via a user interface) at his or her own discretion, before, during, or after consumption of the meal.”) that includes glucose measurements for the user over a historical time period (see paragraphs [0094] and [0138]-[0141]; e.g., retrieve image from photo library and log meals with time on graph; also see paragraph [0143]; e.g., historical glucose graph), wherein the user input comprises selection of the position within the historical glucose graph (see paragraphs [0138]-[0141]; e.g., log meals with photo of meal);
responsive to the user input: determining a historical impact of the meal on the glucose measurements of the user based on historical effects of similar meals (see paragraphs [0083], [0129]-[0131], [0222] and [0239]; e.g., “good” and “bad” meals); and classifying the meal as having the historical impact (see paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0012], [0056], [0119]-[0125], [0133] and [0143]; e.g., labeling previous meals); and
displaying, in a user interface, an image representative of the meal at the position on the historical glucose graph (see paragraphs [0138]-[0141] and [0225]; e.g., glucose graph with image of meal plotted at time of meal) as well as a visual indication of the classification of the meal (see paragraphs [0170]-[0180]; e.g., display magnitude of glucose response to meal; meal sensitivity settings).
Regarding claim 3, Hayter discloses wherein the image representative of the meal is captured with a camera of the computing device the image representative of the meal is captured with a camera of the computing device (see paragraphs [0138]-[0141] and [0225]; e.g., camera to take picture of meal), and
the historical impact includes one of a positive impact, a negative impact, and a neutral impact on the glucose measurements of the user (see paragraphs [0083], [0129]-[0131], [0222] and [0239]; e.g., “good” and “bad” meals).
Regarding claim 5, Hayter discloses receiving, at the computing device, a modification by the user of the position of the meal on the historical glucose graph; displaying, in the user interface, the image representative of the meal at a modified position on the historical glucose (see figs 5 and 10; e.g., user can update glucose graph with image of meal plotted at time of meal).
Regarding claim 6, Hayter discloses wherein the user input comprises at least one voice command to log the meal (see paragraph [0066]; voice input).
Regarding claim 7, Hayter discloses wherein the user input further comprises a selection of the meal from a user interface that displays multiple events (see fig 5A, e.g., select meal).
Regarding claim 8, Hayter discloses receiving, at the computing device, a user selection of the meal; identifying historical meals similar to the selected meal; and displaying, in the user interface, a representation of historical effects of a similar meal to the selected meal on the historical glucose graph of the user (see paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0120]-[0123], [0133], [0143] and [0168]; e.g., user can select image of meal and make historical comparisons of similar meals; plotted on graph).
Regarding claim 9, Hayter discloses wherein displaying, in the user interface, the representation of the historical effects of the similar meal on the historical glucose graph of the user includes displaying, in the user interface, overlays of additional historical glucose graphs of the user for one or more instances in which the user has consumed the similar meal to the selected meal (see paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0120]-[0123], [0133], [0143] and [0168]; e.g., user can select image of meal and make historical comparisons of similar meals; plotted on graph).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Hayter further discloses obtaining, at a computing device, historical glucose measurements of a user, the glucose measurements collected by a glucose monitoring device (see fig 2A, reader 120).
Regarding claim 11, Hayter discloses wherein the user interface further includes a selectable meal logging control (see paragraphs [0138]-[0141] and [0225]; e.g., log meals), and wherein the receiving the user input data further comprises receiving, by the computing device, user input to select the meal logging control (see paragraphs [0138]-[0141] and [0225]; e.g., log meals).
Regarding claim 12, Hayter discloses receiving, at the computing device, a modification by the user of the position of the meal on the historical glucose graph; displaying, in the user interface, the image representative of the meal at a modified position on the historical glucose graph (see figs 5 and 10; e.g., user can update glucose graph with image of meal plotted at time of meal).
Regarding claim 13, Hayter discloses wherein displaying the image representative of the meal comprises displaying a captured image of the meal as the image representative of the meal consumed by the user (see paragraphs [0138]-[0141] and [0225]; e.g., saving picture of meal along with time).
Regarding claim 14, Hayter discloses wherein the image is received from a meal logging application (see paragraphs [0138]-[0141] and [0225]; e.g., log meals).
Regarding claim 15, Hayter discloses wherein the image representative of the meal is user selectable, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving user input to select the image representative of the meal; and displaying additional information associated with the meal in the user interface (see paragraph [0175]; e.g., “clicking on a meal in ranking report 500 can initiate a screen with additional information about that particular meal.”).
Regarding claim 16, Hayter discloses wherein the additional information includes an additional historical glucose graph associated with at least one similar meal consumed by the user at a previous time (see figs 14A and 14B).
Regarding claim 17, Hayter discloses wherein the additional information comprises nutritional information obtained by processing the image representative of the meal consumed by the user to identify the meal consumed by the user (see paragraphs [0116], [0133], [0140] and [0188]; e.g., nutritional information).
Regarding claim 18, Hayter discloses wherein the image representative of the meal includes a visual indication of a classification of the meal consumed by the user (see paragraphs [0042] and [0083]; e.g., classify meals).
Regarding claim 19, Hayter discloses wherein the visual indication classifies the meal as being high in carbohydrates or low in carbohydrates (see paragraphs [0116], [0133], [0140] and [0188]; e.g., carbohydrates).
Regarding claim 20, Hayter discloses wherein the visual indication classifies the meal as having a negative, neutral, or positive effect on the glucose measurements of the user (see paragraph [0083]; e.g., good meals).
Regarding claim 21, Hayter discloses further comprising: receiving activity data indicative of an activity performed by the user and a time at which the activity was performed; and displaying, in the user interface, an image representative of the activity performed by the user, image representative of the activity overlaying the historical glucose graph at a position corresponding to the time at which the activity was performed (see paragraphs [0138]-[0141] and [0225]; e.g., glucose graph with image of meal plotted at time of meal).
Regarding claim 22, Hayter discloses wherein the activity data is received from a third-party application that is separate from a glucose application that displays the user interface (see paragraphs [0188] and [0219]).
Regarding claim 23, Hayter discloses wherein the glucose monitoring device comprises a wearable glucose monitoring device that is wirelessly coupled to the computing device (see paragraph [0064]; e.g., wearable electronics).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Hayter further discloses obtaining, at a computing device, glucose measurements of a user, the glucose measurements collected by a glucose monitoring device (see fig 2A, reader 120).
Claim 26 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 30, Hayter discloses wherein the image of the meal is received from a third-party application (see paragraphs [0188] and [0219]).
Regarding claim 31, Hayter discloses wherein the event representation is selectable to view additional information associated with the event (see paragraph [0081]; e.g., selecting an entry opens summary).
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Hayter further discloses obtaining, at a computing device, historical glucose measurements of a user, the historical glucose measurements collected by a glucose monitoring device (see fig 2A, reader 120).
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 34, Hayter discloses automatically processing the image representative of the meal to identify one or more items depicted in the image; and deriving, based on the identified items, nutritional information associated with the meal; wherein the predicted impact of the meal on the historical glucose measurements of the user is further determined based on the derived nutritional information (see paragraphs [0133], [0170]-[0180]; e.g., “the imagery of the meal can be analyzed using image recognition techniques to identify attributes of the meal such as recognizable components of the meal.”).
Regarding claim 35, Hayter discloses wherein the visual indication of the classification of the meal includes a color indicative of a healthfulness of the meal (see paragraphs [0163], [0225], [0228] and [0244]-[0254]; e.g., colored shapes of various degrees of magnitude).
Regarding claim 36, Hayter discloses wherein the visual indication of the classification of the meal includes a colored ring surrounding the image representative of the meal see paragraphs [0163], [0225], [0228] and [0244]-[0254]; e.g., colored shapes of various degrees of magnitude).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning Hayter failing to disclose “determining a historical impact of the meal on the glucose measurements of the user based on historical effects of similar meals; and classifying the meal as having the historical impact,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hayter clearly discloses classifying historical impact of meals (see paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0012], [0056], [0119]-[0125], [0133], [0143], [0168], [0174]-[0177] and [0188]).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grove et al (US 8,892,677).
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAWN N TILLERY whose telephone number is (571)272-6480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/RASHAWN N TILLERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights