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 04/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13, 15, 20-21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13, 15, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “training a neural network model by using a following method to obtain a trained first neural network model”, “forming a group of new training data from the first invasive blood glucose detection result and characteristic values of a group of Photoplethysmography (PPG) signals of the detected object collected most recently by a non-invasive blood glucose detector”, “determining a correlation degree between the group of new training data and multiple groups of training data in a training set of the first neural network model, wherein correlation analysis is performed on the group of new training data and multiple data units in the training set of the first neural network model in sequence, so as to obtain correlation degrees between the group of new training data and the multiple data units and each one of the multiple data units comprise characteristic values of a group of PPG signals and an invasive blood glucose detection result which are collected in a same period”, “determining whether there is target training data whose correlation degree with the group of new training data reaches a correlation degree threshold in the multiple groups of the training data”, “comparing the first invasive blood detection result with a second invasive blood detection result in the target training data when there is the target training data in the multiple groups of the training data, and when a difference between the first invasive blood detection result and the second invasive blood detection result is greater than a difference threshold, determining that physiology of the detected object has changed greatly, and replacing the target training data with the group of new training data to obtain an updated training set so as to ensure validity of training data in the updated training set”, “training the neural network model with the training data in the updated training set to obtain the trained first neural network model”, “extracting characteristic values of a group of new PPG signals after acquiring the group of new PPG signals, and inputting the characteristic values into the trained first neural network model to obtain a target blood glucose detection result by correcting the group of new PPG signals using the trained first neural network model”, and “after obtaining the target blood glucose detection result, prompting corresponding prompt information to the detected object according to a target blood glucose value range corresponding to the target blood glucose detection result, wherein different target blood glucose value ranges correspond to different prompt information, and the different prompt information comprises going to a hospital for treatment, self-injection of insulin, or taking another medicine.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). Prompting a user to go to the hospital for treatment, self-inject insulin, or take another medicine does not further qualify as affecting a particular treatment as the user is given instruction to apply a treatment, as opposed to integrating the treatment itself. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “establishing a communication connection with a blood glucose detector to acquire a first invasive blood glucose detection result of a detected object from the blood glucose detector” and “a terminal device”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0005]: “conventional blood glucose monitoring systems” of Wexler et al. (US 20200375549 A1), hereinafter Wexler and Thompson et al. (US 20080129535 A1) para [0004]: “In some known systems, the multiple stored values from the blood glucose meter are periodically transferred to a separate computer.”. Regarding the “terminal device” a generic computer structure is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 3-4 and 6-10 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. Thus, claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 11 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “training a neural network model by using a following method to obtain a trained first neural network model”, “forming a group of new training data from the first invasive blood glucose detection result and characteristic values of a group of Photoplethysmography (PPG) signals of the detected object collected most recently by a non-invasive blood glucose detector”, “determining a correlation degree between the group of new training data and multiple groups of training data in a training set of the first neural network model, wherein correlation analysis is performed on the group of new training data and multiple data units in the training set of the first neural network model in sequence, so as to obtain correlation degrees between the group of new training data and the multiple data units, and each one of the multiple data units comprise characteristic values of a group of PPG signals and an invasive blood glucose detection result which are collected in a same period”, “determining whether there is target training data whose correlation degree with the group of new training data reaches a correlation degree threshold in the multiple groups of the training data”, “comparing the first invasive blood detection result with a second invasive blood detection result in the target training data when there is the target training data in the multiple groups of the training data, and when a difference between the first invasive blood detection result and the second invasive blood detection result is greater than a difference threshold, determining that physiology of the detected object has changed greatly, and replacing the target training data with the group of new training data to obtain an updated training set so as to ensure validity of training data in the updated training set”, “training the neural network model with the training data in the updated training set to obtain the trained first neural network model”, “extracting characteristic values of a group of new PPG signals after acquiring the group of new PPG signals, and inputting the characteristic values into the trained first neural network model to obtain a target blood glucose detection result by correcting the group of new PPG signals using the trained first neural network model”, and “after obtaining the target blood glucose detection result, prompting corresponding prompt information to the detected object according to a target blood glucose value range corresponding to the target blood glucose detection result, wherein different blood glucose value ranges correspond to different prompt information, and the different prompt information comprises going to a hospital for treatment, self-injection of insulin, or taking another medicine.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “establishing a communication connection with a blood glucose detector to acquire a first invasive blood glucose detection result of a detected object from the blood glucose detector” and “a terminal device”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0005]: “conventional blood glucose monitoring systems” of Wexler and Thompson et al. (US 20080129535 A1) para [0004]: “In some known systems, the multiple stored values from the blood glucose meter are periodically transferred to a separate computer.”. Regarding the “terminal device” a generic computer structure is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 11 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 13, 15, and 20-21 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. Thus, claim(s) 11, 13, 15, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13, 15, and 20-21 are allowable over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13, 15 and 20-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 of the Remarks that amended claims 1 and 11 are integrated into a practical application “since corresponding prompt information (for example going to hospital for treatment, self-injection of insulin, or taking another medicine) can be prompted to the detected object according to a target blood glucose value range corresponding to the target blood glucose detection result.”. However, prompting a patient to take further action is effectively “displaying results of certain analysis”, in this case the target blood glucose detection result. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Regarding the improvement to a technical field, an improvement to the accuracy of non-invasive blood glucose detection (per applicant’s specification page 2 para 1 and Remarks page 9), improvements to the accuracy of a data set is a mathematical concept as it relates to the degree to which measurements conform to a standard. The rejection under the 35 U.S.C. 101 is thus maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
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, Jaqueline 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights