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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 December 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are 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 1 now includes a step of “determining whether the initial calibration information has been acquired” but includes only subsequent steps for if the determination is positive. It is unclear whether the intent is for the method to end if the determination is negative or if additional steps have been omitted. Further, the step prior to this determining comprises “acquiring… initial calibration information” such that it is entirely clear why this step of determining has been included when it appears the only possible result of a determination is a positive result; as such, it is additionally unclear why the determining step is followed by an “if” clause indicating that the result could possibly be negative.
Claim 1 continues by still calling for generating a message “including a calibration identifier indicating whether the sensor transmitter is calibrated or not” – it is unclear if this is related to the acquiring of calibration information or if the calibration of the sensor transmitter involves some other calibration information. If this is related to the acquiring of the calibration information, it is unclear how the determination could indicate that the transmitter is not calibrated when the determination only takes place after acquiring calibration information. If it is unrelated to the acquiring of calibration information, how is the calibration of the transmitter determined?
Further, the “initial calibration message” which is indicative of the calibration status of the transmitter is sent from the terminal to the transmitter – how is the terminal more aware of the calibration status of the transmitter than the transmitter itself?
Claim 1 further calls for providing the blood glucose information to a user, and then calls for calibrating the blood glucose information. It is unclear if the information presented to the user is uncalibrated or if the intent is to calibrate the information and then present it to the user. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 continues by calling for determining whether a time difference between acquiring the initial calibration information and a current time is within a particular range; it is unclear if this refers only to the time of the calibration information reaching the terminal, or if this also involves the time that the calibration information itself was determined, usually using physiological data, where calibration information is only useful within a particular timeframe of the acquisition of data that is used for the calibration itself.
Similarly, the claim continues by calling for using that calibration information to calibrate the blood glucose information if the calibration information has been acquired recently enough – it is unclear why times between receipt of data are used to establish criticality in the method when there is no indication that the received blood glucose information is also acquired within any particular time relative to the acquiring of the calibration information or the “current time”, where the received blood glucose information could equally be entirely historical data. Clarification is required.
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 112, the Examiner notes that the proposed amendments presented in the response after final dated 1 October 2025 differ significantly from the currently pending claims filed 1 December 2025, such that any indication of overcoming previously presented rejections in the Advisory Action of 8 October 2025 has been negated by the subsequent filing of different claim amendments. The general assertion that the amendments have overcome all issues is entirely unpersuasive.
Conclusion
No art has been applied against the claims at this time; however, as all claims are rejected under 112 above they are not presently allowable and the question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the scope of the claims.
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
Prosecution Insights