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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 63-67 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 1+ and 63+ are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different designs where claims 1+ call for inclusion of an application stored on a memory that is part of a device which also comprises processors which are configured to execute the application, whereas claims 63+ are directed to an application stored separately from a device comprising processors which are configured to execute the application. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 63-67 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been considered. Applicant should note that the excessively large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 calls for the processor(s) to “update the profile card section and the analyte graph section” which are “indicative of the analyte level” based on “input” “corresponding to a pulldown gesture”. It is entirely unclear what sort of input corresponding merely to a downward movement could be related to or used to alter in any way both a profile card and an analyte graph, particularly as the single “pulldown gesture” is the basis for somehow updating both of these distinctly different types of information. Clarification is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 12, 16, 17, 20, 58-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mensinger (US 2014/0184423) in view of Mahalingam (US 2017/0181645).
Regarding claim 1, Mensinger discloses a system for third party analyte monitoring (a caretaker or practitioner (third party) remotely monitoring analytes of a host; abstract, fig 2A, para [0031]), the system comprising:
a sensor control device comprising an analyte sensor (a smart phone (control device) comprising a continuous sensor such as a glucose meter (analyte); paras [0031], [0042]); wherein at least a portion of the analyte sensor is configured to be in fluid contact with a bodily fluid of a monitored user (the glucose meter providing glucose level (bodily fluid) measurements of a host (monitored user); paras [0031], [0033], [0042]);
a first reader device configured to wirelessly receive data indicative of an analyte level of the monitored user from the sensor control device (a receiver 102 (first reader device) includes a display to wirelessly present information (analyte level) of the host from (receive) the continuous analyte sensor 10; fig 2A, para [0043]), wherein the first reader device is further configured to send the data indicative of the analyte level to a trusted computer system (receiver 102 wirelessly sends data to a secure (trusted) server 110; fig 2A, paras [0043]-[0044]);
a secondary display device (remote monitor 114 (secondary display device); fig 2A; para [0046]), comprising:
wireless communication circuitry configured to receive, from the trusted computer system, sensor type information of the sensor control device and the data indicative of the analyte level of the monitored user (secure server 110 sends blood glucose data of the host and metadata comprising type of device used (sensor type information) over wireless communication channel to the remote monitor 114; fig 2A, paras [0074], [0076], [0124], [0127]),
one or more processors coupled with a memory, the memory storing a third party analyte monitoring application installed on the secondary display device (remote monitor 114 includes a processor, and a computer-readable storage medium to store executable code comprising a remote monitoring application; para [0046]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to
display one or more connection interfaces reflecting the data indicative of the analyte level of the monitored user (paragraph [0120], [0136]);
Mensinger further discloses the system comprising applications which cause processors to:
If the sensor control device is a first sensor control device type, displaying a first set of alarm notification settings interfaces (paragraph [0036], [0048], [0051], [0054]-[0056], [0118]), and
If the type of the sensor control device is a second sensor control device type different from the first type, displaying a second set of alarm notification settings interfaces that is different from the first interfaces (paragraph [0036], [0048], [0051], [0054]-[0056], [0118]).
Mensinger does not explicitly call for the application stored in the memory of the secondary display device to comprise the instructions to cause the secondary display device’s processors to display the connection interfaces, determine the type of sensor, and display the alarm notification settings interfaces.
Mahalingam teaches a system for third party analyte monitoring which comprises a sensor control device comprising an analyte sensor (paragraph [0108]), a first reader device configured to receive data indicative of an analyte level from the sensor control device (element 502; paragraph [0135]) and to send the data to a trusted computer system (element 510); and a secondary display device (elements 508; paragraph [0135]) comprising circuitry and one or more processors (paragraphs [0120], [0121]), where tasks within the system can be hosted on any of the constituent devices including the trusted computer or the secondary display device (paragraph [0146], “Likewise, any functionality herein ascribed to Secure Server 504 can also be performed by a host monitoring device or remote monitoring device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Mensinger with the application installed on the secondary display device further including the programming to cause the processors of the secondary display device to display the connection interfaces, determine the type of sensor, and display the alarm notification settings interfaces, as taught by Mahalingam, as Mahalingam indicates that the necessary operations for use of an analyte monitoring system are equally useful regardless of which element of the system hosts those operations.
Regarding claim 4, Mensinger further discloses wherein the one or more connection interfaces reflecting the data indicative of the analyte level of the monitored user includes a first connection interface comprising a “profile card” section and an analyte graph section (displaying a name 1902 of the host and picture 1904 of the host (profile card section) and a trend graph 1914 of sensor data; fig 19; para [0065], [0225]).
Regarding claim 7, Mensinger further discloses wherein the profile card section comprises a background color indicative of whether a current analyte level is within a target analyte range (different colors are provided showing glucose levels and to segregate riskier (outside a target range) host-patients; fig 18A; paras [0136], [0137]).
Regarding claim 12, Mensinger further discloses wherein the profile card section and the analyte graph section are automatically updated at a predetermined frequency based on the data indicative of the analyte level of the monitored user (the secure server automatically sends sensor data of the host after the expiration of a 5 minute timer (predetermined frequency) to the remote monitor 114 having an updated set of sensor data generating the glucose level 1906 and the trend line 1916; fig 19; paras [0066], [0066], [0106]).
Regarding claim 16, Mensinger further discloses the trusted computer system, wherein the trusted computer system comprises a cloud-based server (secure server 110 is coupled to the cloud; para [0108]).
Regarding claim 17, Mensinger further discloses wherein the sensor control device is configured to wirelessly transmit the data indicative of the analyte level of the monitored user to the first reader device according to a Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy, or Near Field Communication protocol (paras [0076], [0088]).
Regarding claim 20, Mensinger further discloses wherein first reader device is configured to wirelessly communicate with the sensor control device according to a first wireless communication protocol (wireless communication between the sensor and the receiver 102 is via Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low-Energy (first protocol); paras [0076], [0088]), and wherein the first reader device is further configured to wirelessly communicate with the trusted computer system according to a second wireless communication protocol that is different from the first wireless communication protocol (receiver 102 wirelessly sends data to the secure server 110 via cellular or radio frequency (second protocol that is different); paras [0072], [0088]).
Regarding claim 58, Mensinger further discloses that one of the alarm notification settings interfaces may include a glucose threshold setting that is not modifiable in the third party analyte monitoring application (paragraphs [0035], [0045], [0142], [0143]; the threshold may be a “predetermined” threshold, thus not modifiable via the application) and the other of the interfaces including at least one analyte threshold setting that is modifiable in the application (the “predetermined” threshold is not required to be included in the settings).
Regarding claim 59, Mensinger further discloses that one of the alarm notification setting interfaces may include a “no recent data” setting (paragraph [0142], [0143], [0251]; figure 17, element 1738).
Regarding claim 60, Mensinger further discloses that the received sensor type information comprises one or more of a version number, a version name, a model name, a model number, a serial number, a sensor code, or an identifier indicative of the type of the sensor control device (paras [0074], [0076], [0124], [0127]).
Regarding claims 61 and 62, Mensinger further discloses that the sensor types may include scan-based sensor control devices (paragraph [0042], glucose meter) and streaming sensor control devices (paragraphs [0042], [0082], continuous sensors).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mensinger, as modified by Mahalingam above, and further in view of Qing (US 2018/0263575).
Regarding claim 10, Mensinger further discloses wherein the secondary display device further comprises a touchscreen (remote monitor 114 touch screen; para [0067]), and wherein the third party analyte monitoring application (remote monitoring application; para [0135]), when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to:
receive input from the touchscreen corresponding to a selected point on the analyte graph section (touching the screen of the remote monitor to over an area associated with a message 170 showing a trend graph; paras [0065], [0067]).
Mensinger does not disclose further updating the profile card section based on the received input causing the profile card section to reflect an analyte level at a time corresponding to the selected point on the analyte graph, where the updated “profile card” section remains in a stationary position relative to the analyte graph section. Qing teaches a monitoring system (paragraph [0023]) comprising a touchscreen (paragraph [0020]) and a connection interface which includes a monitored parameter graph section (element 602) and a “profile card” section which remains stationary relative to the graph section (element 604) and, where the system is configured to receive input from the touchscreen corresponding to a selected point on the graph section and to update the “profile card” section based on the received input from the touchscreen to reflect a parameter level at a time corresponding to the selected point on the graph (paragraph [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Mensinger, as modified above, with the system configured to update the “profile card” section of the connection interface to reflect an analyte level at a time corresponding to the selected touched point on the analyte graph section while ensuring the profile card maintains a stable position, as taught by Qing, in order to allow review of historical data without interfering with the remainder of displayed information in the graph section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally asserts that Mensinger does not teach the limitations directed to alarm notification settings interfaces by providing a summary of what Applicant believes Mensinger does disclose, citing only to selected portions of what has been cited against the claimed invention. This general assertion of not disclosing what has been disclosed is entirely unpersuasive, particularly as Applicant’s remarks do not address all of the citations to Mensinger showing the disclosure of these limitations.
Applicant then asserts that Mahalingam also does not disclose “displaying different sets of alarm notification setting interfaces”; Mahalingam is not cited to teach this, as it has been disclosed by Mensinger, such that these remarks are moot.
Regarding dependent claims, Applicant further argues that Mensinger, as modified, does not disclose the newly amended limitations of one setting interface including an unmodifiable threshold setting and the other not including an unmodifiable threshold setting; as noted above, paragraph [0045] indicates that a predetermined threshold may be one of the settings for a device, such that in the absence of a specific “first” or “second” device type or set of settings associated with either, having an optional unmodifiable threshold can be considered to belong to one of these, a “first” device’s settings. Similarly, as the “no data” setting of claim 59 is also optional, Mensinger discloses both including and not including this setting.
Conclusion
No art has been applied against claim 11 at this time; however, as claim 11 is objected to in its content and form and depends from a rejected claim, the claim is not presently allowable and the question of prior art will be revisited if applicable when the objection has been resolved.
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 KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
