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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 and 14-20, as recited in an amendment filed on March 19, 2026, were previously pending and subject to a final office action filed on May 5, 2026 (the “May 5, 2026 Final Office Action”). On July 6, 2026, Applicant filed a response to the May 5, 2026 Final Office Action, which: (1) amended claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 15, and 17-19; (2) canceled claims 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, and 20; and (3) added new claims 21-26 (the “July 6, 2026 After Final Response). On July 17, 2026, an Advisory Action was mailed to Applicant advising that the amendments in the “July 6, 2026 After Final Response would not be entered, because: (1) they raised new issues that would require further consideration and/or search; and (2) they were not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the issues for appeal.
On August 4, 2026, Applicant filed a Request for Continued Examination in accordance with 37 CFR 1.114, where Applicant requested entry and consideration of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26, as filed in the July 6, 2026 After Final Response (the “August 4, 2026 RCE”). Based on the August 4, 2026 RCE, claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26, as recited in the July 6, 2026 After Final Response, are entered, currently pending, and subject to the non-final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 4, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b)(4), and has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Claim Interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 9, Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) Section, filed July 6, 2026, with respect to the claim interpretations of the modules previously recited in claims 16, 19, and 20 have been fully considered, but they are moot in light of Applicant’s amendments. Specifically, Applicant amended canceled claims 16 and 20 and deleted the limitation directed to the normalization module in claim 19 in the July 6, 2026 After Final Response. As such, the claim interpretations of the modules under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are no longer necessary and are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks Concerning Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pp. 10-18, Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section, filed July 6, 2026, with respect to rejections of claim 1-12 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Further, in light of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (available at MPEP § 2106) (the “2019 Revised PEG”), the § 101 rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are maintained and the § 101 rejections of new claims 21-26 are added in this office action.
First, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, because the amended claims recite specific computer-implemented operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. See Applicant’s Remarks, at pp. 11-13 (under Subsection 1 of the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section). Examiner respectfully disagrees. A similar argument was addressed in previous office actions. See the May 5, 2026 Final Office Action, at pp. 3-5; the December 19, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, at pp. 3-4; and the August 27, 2025 Final Office Action, at pp. 3-4. While Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite an abstract idea within any of the groupings of abstract ideas, the claims recite limitations which amount to an abstract idea within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III) (citing CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Id. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Id. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Id.
In the present case, independent claims 1 and 15 recite limitations directed to: (1) generating one or more feature values (i.e., described broadly as “any value that can be computed from the glucose measurements in paragraph [0056] of Applicant’s original specification as filed on October 26, 2022) from glucose measurements grouped into a first time period (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could evaluate the glucose measurements and make an observation/judgment/opinion that the glucoses levels are “good” or “bad”); (2) detecting a pattern in the glucose measurements grouped into the first time period (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually identify trends in the glucose measurements); determining a severity value for the pattern (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually determine how far the pattern is from some criteria or standard for the feature value of the glucose measurements); (4) mapping the pattern to a plurality of behavior modification feedback based on at least one of a time or duration of the pattern (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually associate the pattern of glucose measurements to the plurality of behavior modification feedback based on least one of a time or a duration of the pattern); and (5) selecting a behavior modification to improve glucose levels corresponding to the pattern based on the severity level (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually select the patient’s behavior in order to improve the glucose levels observed in the detected pattern). These steps amount to different types of observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions that are reasonably performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the aforementioned claim limitations may reasonably be interpreted as mental/manual observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person, such as a healthcare professional.
Further, while Examiner agrees that the steps and features for: (1) “automatically grouping, for each time window of the multiple time windows and based on the timestamps associated with the glucose measurements, the glucose measurements into corresponding time periods of the multiple time periods of the time window, including the first time period, wherein the first time periods are corresponding recurring time periods across the multiple time windows” and (2) displaying the behavior modification feedback on a user interface, are not part of an abstract mental process (these features are additional elements which require analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A), these features do not automatically mean that the claims cannot be directed to an abstract idea within the mental processes grouping. A significant portion of the claims recite an abstract mental process that a person is capable of performing (see above, such as the steps for generating the feature values; detecting a pattern from the feature values; determining a severity level for the pattern; mapping the pattern to behavior modification feedback; and selecting the behavior modification). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract mental process and this argument is still not persuasive for this reason.
Next, Applicant asserts that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the claims recite an improvement in technology. See Applicant’s Remarks, at pp. 13-16 (under Subsection 2 of the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section). Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument was also addressed in previous office actions. See May 5, 2026 Final Office Action, at pp. 5-7; the December 19, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, at pp. 4-5; and the August 27, 2025 Final Office Action. When evaluating whether claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or a technical field, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP § 2106.05(a). The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. In the present case, Applicant has not identified a technical problem, nor has Applicant explained the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claims. Applicant’s claims have not described a new or improved way for identifying immediate safety risks. Rather, automatically grouping the glucose measurements into groups based on time periods of when the glucose measurements were collected does not appear to provide an improved way for provider behavior modification feedback, because it merely represents data gathering and does not impose meaningful limits on the claims (i.e., grouping data is generic and generally well-known in the medical industry). Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to an improvement in technology.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Applicant’s Remarks, at pp. 16-18 (under Subsection 3 of the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, this argument was also addressed in previous office actions. See the May 5, 2026 Final Office Action, at pp. 7-9; the December 19, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, at p. 5; and the August 27, 2025 Final Office Action, at p. 5. Applicant argues that the amended claims recite a particular sequence of computer-implemented operations in an ordered combination. See Applicant’s Remarks, at p. 17. However, this is not the analysis for determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. Rather, the MPEP states that [w]hen making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d). In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Id.
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). MPEP § 2106.05(d) On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Id. As identified above in the response to the technological improvement arguments, Applicant’s claims merely recite an abstract mental process applied on a generic computer. For example, courts have found that arranging a hierarchy of groups and sorting information is well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) (citing Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.). Similarly, in the present case, automatically grouping glucose measurements into groups based on times when the glucose measurements were collected is a generic computer functionality (i.e., grouping data can be performed mentally/manually and a generic computer device is applied only to do this automatically).
Despite Applicant’s assertions and analysis, the claims merely recite an abstract idea implemented on computer devices. Examiner asserts that the method of selecting behavior modification feedback for improving glucose levels described in Applicant’s claims represents a well understood, routine, and conventional process in the medical industry, because healthcare professionals routinely receive a patient’s glucose and activity data when deciding which feedback to provide to the user in order to improve the user’s glucose levels. Automatically grouping the glucose measurements does not represent significantly more than the abstract idea, because grouping data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field. Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As such, the claims are not deemed to be patent eligible under § 101 based on the 2019 Revised PEG. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are maintained and the § 101 rejections of new claims 21-26 are added in this office action. Please see amended rejections to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 below, for further clarification and analysis of the claims under the 2019 Revised PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 24 recite:
- comparing the real-time activity data to an activity parameter associated with each candidate behavior modification feedback in a candidate set including the plurality of behavior modification feedback in the behavior library;
- suppressing, from the candidate set, each behavior modification feedback whose associated activity parameter is already satisfied by the real-time activity data at or above a compliance condition; and
- selecting the at least one behavior modification feedback from the candidate set after the suppressing.
While Applicant’s specification provides general support for the wearable glucose monitoring device being capable of communicating measurements in real-time (see Applicant’s original specification as filed on October 26, 2022, paragraph [0025]), Applicant’s specification is silent as to limitations directed to: (1) “comparing the real-time activity data to an activity parameter associated with each candidate behavior modification feedback in a candidate set including the plurality of behavior modification feedback in the behavior library” (as described in claims 21 and 24); (2) “suppressing, from the candidate set, each behavior modification feedback whose associated activity parameter is already satisfied by the real-time activity data at or above a compliance condition” (as described in claims 21 and 24); and (3) “selecting the at least one behavior modification feedback from the candidate set after the suppressing” (as described in claims 21 and 24). Therefore, this disclosure does not provide written description support for the aforementioned limitations.
Matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that is added after the application filing is usually new matter. See MPEP §§ 2163.06 and 2163.07. These amendments (i) change the scope of the claims, and as described above, and (ii) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the limitations directed to: (1) “comparing the real-time activity data to an activity parameter associated with each candidate behavior modification feedback in a candidate set including the plurality of behavior modification feedback in the behavior library” (as described in claims 21 and 24); (2) “suppressing, from the candidate set, each behavior modification feedback whose associated activity parameter is already satisfied by the real-time activity data at or above a compliance condition” (as described in claims 21 and 24); and (3) “selecting the at least one behavior modification feedback from the candidate set after the suppressing” (as described in claims 21 and 24), are deemed to be new matter, because the specification does not provide written description support for them. Examiner notes that the aforementioned limitations in new claims 21 and 24 are almost identical to limitations that were previously in claims 1, 15, and 16 and rejected under § 112(a) for introducing new matter in a previous office action. See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) Section on pp. 9-12 of the Non-Final Office Action, filed on December 19, 2025. As such, claims 21 and 24 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Examiner further notes that the step of: “suppressing, from the candidate set, each behavior modification feedback whose associated activity parameter is already satisfied by the real-time activity data at or above a compliance condition” (as described in claims 21 and 24), is not described by the present Specification in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed, e.g. see MPEP § 2161.01. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement, e.g. see MPEP § 2161.01. For example, the present claim language discloses suppressing each behavior modification feedback whose associated activity parameter is already satisfied by the real-time activity data or is above a compliance condition, but the specification does not disclose the steps or algorithm (e.g. the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that explains how the system is able to determine what is that the activity parameters are satisfied or above a compliance condition. For example, the claim language seems to imply that there is some level or value for the activity parameters or a condition that is deemed to be “satisfied” or “in compliance”, but the specification is silent as what this satisfactory or compliant levels or values are for the activity parameters in order to determine which behavior modification feedback will be suppressed. Therefore, Applicant’s specification lacks adequate written description for these computer-implemented functional claim limitations. See MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG
Following Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 21-23 are directed to a method implemented in a continuous glucose monitoring system, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claims 15, 17-19, and 24-26 are directed to a system, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1, 15, and 16 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 15 recites the following limitations:
A system comprising:
a continuous glucose level monitoring system having a glucose sensor for measuring glucose measurements periodically and electronics for transmitting the glucose measurements;
one or more processors;
a display device; and
computer-readable storage media having stored thereon multiple instructions of an application that, responsive to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain, from a glucose sensor of a continuous glucose level monitoring system and for each time window of multiple time windows, glucose measurements generated by the glucose sensor and measured for a user for a first time period of multiple time periods of the time window, the glucose measurements being associated with timestamps indicating when each of the glucose measurements was taken, the glucose sensor being inserted at an insertion site of the user;
automatically group, for each time window of the multiple time windows and based on the timestamps associated with the glucose measurements, the glucose measurements into corresponding time periods of the multiple time periods of the time window, including the first time period, wherein the first time periods are corresponding recurring time periods across the multiple time windows;
generate, from the glucose measurements grouped into the first time periods of the multiple time windows, one or more feature values for the first time period of the multiple time windows;
detect, from the one or more feature values for the first time period of the multiple time windows, a pattern in the glucose measurements in the first time period of the multiple time windows;
determine, based on a feature value of the one or more feature values and criteria for a feature corresponding to the feature value, a severity value for the pattern, the severity value corresponding to a quantified deviation of the feature value from the criteria;
map the pattern to a plurality of behavior modification feedback in a behavior library based on at least one of a time or duration of the pattern;
select at least one behavior modification feedback to improve glucose levels corresponding to the pattern, the selecting based on the severity value of behavior modification feedback;
generate a user interface including the at least one behavior modification feedback; and
cause the user interface to be displayed on the display device.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Mental Processes category covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) (i.e., a method for diabetes management, comprising: generating one or more feature values from glucose measurements grouped into a first time period; detecting a pattern in the glucose measurements grouped into the first time period; determining a severity value for the pattern; mapping the pattern to a plurality of behavior modification feedback based on at least one of a time or duration of the pattern; and selecting a behavior modification to improve glucose levels corresponding to the pattern based on the severity level). That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claim 15 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1 and 15 encompasses concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., a method for diabetes management, comprising: generating one or more feature values from glucose measurements grouped into a first time period; detecting a pattern in the glucose measurements grouped into the first time period; determining a severity value for the pattern; mapping the pattern to a plurality of behavior modification feedback based on at least one of a time or duration of the pattern; and selecting a behavior modification to improve glucose levels corresponding to the pattern based on the severity level).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1 and 15 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, because they merely recite limitations which encompass a person mentally and/or manually: (1) generating one or more feature values (i.e., described broadly as “any value that can be computed from the glucose measurements in paragraph [0056] of Applicant’s original specification as filed on October 26, 2022) from glucose measurements grouped into a first time period (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could evaluate the glucose measurements and make an observation/judgment/opinion that the glucoses levels are “good” or “bad”); (2) detecting a pattern in the glucose measurements grouped into the first time period (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually identify trends in the glucose measurements); determining a severity value for the pattern (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually determine how far the pattern is from some criteria or standard for the feature value of the glucose measurements); (4) mapping the pattern to a plurality of behavior modification feedback based on at least one of a time or duration of the pattern (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually associate the pattern of glucose measurements to the plurality of behavior modification feedback based on least one of a time or a duration of the pattern); and (5) selecting a behavior modification to improve glucose levels corresponding to the pattern based on the severity level (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually select the patient’s behavior in order to improve the glucose levels observed in the detected pattern). Therefore, the aforementioned underlined claim limitations may reasonably be interpreted as mental/manual observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person, such as a healthcare professional. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, claims 1 and 15 recite an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes category.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17-19, and 21-26 include limitations which further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that: (1) dependent claims 4, 21, and 24 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements, and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A; and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 23, 25, and 26 do not provide any limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A. For example, claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 17 merely recite specific ranges for the time periods that the glucose measurements are taken from (i.e., these steps are deemed to be reasonably performed mentally or manually using a pen and paper, because they modify the data that is used for the observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions). Similarly, claims 9, 12, 14, and 18 merely recite for making determinations and selecting the type of the behavior modification feedback (i.e., these steps are deemed to be reasonably performed mentally or manually using a pen and paper, because they recite additional observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions). Further, claim 19 includes limitations for the detected patterns being related to one or more feature values where certain criteria are not satisfied; and claims 22, 23, 25, and 26 include limitations calculating the difference between actual time-in-range values and a target time-in-range value and selecting the behavior modification feedback based on recency of the detected pattern (i.e., these steps are deemed to be reasonably performed mentally or manually using a pen and paper, because they recite additional observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions).
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the present case, for independent claim 15, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system comprising (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
a continuous glucose level monitoring system having a glucose sensor for measuring glucose measurements periodically and electronics for transmitting the glucose measurements (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h));
one or more processors (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a display device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
computer-readable storage media having stored thereon multiple instructions of an application that, responsive to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
obtain, from a glucose sensor of a continuous glucose level monitoring system and for each time window of multiple time windows, glucose measurements generated by the glucose sensor and measured for a user for a first time period of multiple time periods of the time window, the glucose measurements being associated with timestamps indicating when each of the glucose measurements was taken, the glucose sensor being inserted at an insertion site of the user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); the Examiner further submits that this additional element amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h); the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
automatically group, for each time window of the multiple time windows and based on the timestamps associated with the glucose measurements, the glucose measurements into corresponding time periods of the multiple time periods of the time window, including the first time period, wherein the first time periods are corresponding recurring time periods across the multiple time windows (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
generate, from the glucose measurements grouped into the first time periods of the multiple time windows, one or more feature values for the first time period of the multiple time windows;
detect, from the one or more feature values for the first time period of the multiple time windows, a pattern in the glucose measurements in the first time period of the multiple time windows;
determine, based on a feature value of the one or more feature values and criteria for a feature corresponding to the feature value, a severity value for the pattern, the severity value corresponding to a quantified deviation of the feature value from the criteria;
map the pattern to a plurality of behavior modification feedback in a behavior library based on at least one of a time or duration of the pattern;
select at least one behavior modification feedback to improve glucose levels corresponding to the pattern, the selecting based on the severity value of behavior modification feedback;
generate a user interface including the at least one behavior modification feedback (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
cause the user interface to be displayed on the display device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
However, the recitation of these generic computer components and functions in claim 15 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., using generic computer devices to perform the abstract idea of: a method for diabetes management, comprising: generating one or more feature values from glucose measurements grouped into a first time period; detecting a pattern in the glucose measurements grouped into the first time period; determining a severity value for the pattern; mapping the pattern to a plurality of behavior modification feedback based on at least one of a time or duration of the pattern; and selecting a behavior modification to improve glucose levels corresponding to the pattern based on the severity level), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
- The following is an example of court decisions that demonstrate merely applying instructions by reciting the computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed limitations (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, e.g., see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l – similarly, the current invention implements the commonplace medical business method of detecting patterns in data and providing feedback based on the detected patterns using generic computing devices (i.e., the Examiner submits that the additional elements directed to the system, comprising: a continuous glucose level monitoring system having a glucose sensor for measuring glucose measurements periodically and electronics for transmitting the glucose measurements; one or more processors; display device; computer-readable storage media storing multiple instructions of an application; and user interface, are generic computer devices).
- The following is an example of an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Example of Mere Data Gathering/Mere Data Outputting:
- Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, e.g., see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. – similarly, the steps directed to: (1) “obtaining from a glucose sensor of a continuous glucose level monitoring system and for each time window of multiple time windows, glucose measurements measured for a user for a first time period of multiple time periods of the time window, the glucose sensor being inserted at an insertion site of the user”, described in claims 1 and 15, is a necessary data gathering steps (i.e., obtaining the glucose measurements is necessary in order for the system to be able to detect the patterns and provide the behavior modification feedback); and (2) “generating a user interface including the at least one behavior modification feedback” and “causing the user interface to be displayed on the display device”, amounts to necessary data outputting steps.
- The following are examples of generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(h)):
- (1) Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.; (2) Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu; and (3) Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc. - similarly, the limitations directed to the “a glucose sensor of a continuous glucose level monitoring system” amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of glucose monitoring devices. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1 and 15 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 23, 25, and 26 do not recite any additional elements outside of those identified as being directed to the abstract idea described above. Examiner notes that dependent claims 4, 21, and 24 recite the following additional elements identified in bold font below (with limitations deemed to be part of the above identified abstract idea identified in underlined font):
further comprising receiving user input specifying, for each of the multiple time periods, the multi-hour period of time during the day for the time period (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 4); and
prior to selecting the at least one behavior modification feedback, receiving real-time activity data for the user from an activity tracker or other external device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); comparing the real-time activity data to an activity parameter associated with each candidate behavior modification feedback in a candidate set including the plurality of behavior modification feedback in the behavior library; suppressing, from the candidate set, each candidate behavior modification feedback whose associated activity parameter is already satisfied by the real-time activity data at or above a compliance condition; and selecting the at least one behavior modification feedback from the candidate set after the suppressing (as described in claims 21 and 24).
As such, the additional elements in claims 1, 4, 15, 21, and 24 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1, 4, 15, 21, and 24 amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1, 4, 15, 21, and 24, as recited, the system; a continuous glucose level monitoring system having a glucose sensor for measuring glucose measurements periodically and electronics for transmitting the glucose measurements; one or more processors; display device; computer-readable storage media storing multiple instructions of an application; behavior library; user interface; and the steps of: “obtaining, from a glucose sensor of a continuous glucose level monitoring system and for each time window of multiple time windows, glucose measurements generated by the glucose sensor and measured for a user for a first time period of multiple time periods of the time window, the glucose measurements being associated with timestamps indicating when each of the glucose measurements was taken, the glucose sensor being inserted at an insertion site of the user”; “automatically grouping, for each time window of the multiple time windows and based on the timestamps associated with the glucose measurements, the glucose measurements into corresponding time periods of the multiple time periods of the time window, including the first time period, wherein the first time periods are corresponding recurring time periods across the multiple time windows”; “generating a user interface including the at least one behavior modification feedback”; “causing the user interface to be displayed on the display device”; “receiving user input specifying, for each of the multiple time periods, the multi-hour period of time during the day for the time period”; and “prior to selecting the at least one behavior modification feedback, receiving real-time activity data for the user from an activity tracker or other external device”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the system; a continuous glucose level monitoring system having a glucose sensor for measuring glucose measurements periodically and electronics for transmitting the glucose measurements; one or more processors; display device; computer-readable storage media storing multiple instructions of an application; behavior library; user interface; and the steps of: “automatically grouping, for each time window of the multiple time windows and based on the timestamps associated with the glucose measurements, the glucose measurements into corresponding time periods of the multiple time periods of the time window, including the first time period, wherein the first time periods are corresponding recurring time periods across the multiple time windows”, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion. For example, Applicant discloses that: (1) an example of a system generally at 700 that includes an example of a computing device […] and the computing device 702, may be, for example, a server of a service provider, a device associated with a client ( e.g., a client device), an on-chip system, and/or any other suitable computing device or computing system (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on October 26, 2022, paragraph [0143]); (2) the processing system may be configured as processors, semiconductors, and/or transistors (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on October 26, 2022, paragraph [0145]); (3) the computer-readable storage media may include, but are not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, hard disks, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or other storage device, tangible media, or article of manufacture suitable to store the desired information and which may be accessed by a computer (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on October 26, 2022, paragraph [0150]); and (4) examples of the display device include a monitor or projector (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on October 26, 2022, paragraph [0147]). As such, the Examiner submits that the system, the associated devices, and the step directed to: “automatically grouping, for each time window of the multiple time windows and based on the timestamps associated with the glucose measurements, the glucose measurements into corresponding time periods of the multiple time periods of the time window, including the first time period, wherein the first time periods are corresponding recurring time periods across the multiple time windows”, represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer devices which are known in the medical industry.
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
- The Examiner submits that these limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the limitations directed to: the continuous glucose level monitoring system having a glucose sensor for measuring glucose measurements periodically and electronics for transmitting the glucose measurements, amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the fields of glucose monitoring devices (see MPEP § 2106.05(h) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Therefore, these limitations are also deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B for similar reasons since they are claimed in a generic manner.
- Regarding the steps and features directed to: “obtaining, from a glucose sensor of a continuous glucose level monitoring system and for each time window of multiple time windows, glucose measurements generated by the glucose sensor and measured for a user for a first time period of multiple time periods of the time window, the glucose measurements being associated with timestamps indicating when each of the glucose measurements was taken, the glucose sensor being inserted at an insertion site of the user”; “generating a user interface including the at least one behavior modification feedback”; “causing the user interface to be displayed on the display device”; “receiving user input specifying, for each of the multiple time periods, the multi-hour period of time during the day for the time period”; and “prior to selecting the at least one behavior modification feedback, receiving real-time activity data for the user from an activity tracker or other external device” - The following represents an example that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – the aforementioned limitations directed to: “obtaining, from a glucose sensor of a continuous glucose level monitoring system and for each time window of multiple time windows, glucose measurements generated by the glucose sensor and measured for a user for a first time period of multiple time periods of the time window, the glucose measurements being associated with timestamps indicating when each of the glucose measurements was taken, the glucose sensor being inserted at an insertion site of the user”; “generating a user interface including the at least one behavior modification feedback”; “causing the user interface to be displayed on the display device”; “receiving user input specifying, for each of the multiple time periods, the multi-hour period of time during the day for the time period”; and “prior to selecting the at least one behavior modification feedback, receiving real-time activity data for the user from an activity tracker or other external device”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent mere collection and transmission of data over a network (i.e., “obtaining/generating/receiving” and displaying data on an interface are the equivalent of receiving or transmitting data over a network).
Therefore, the additional limitations described in claims 1, 4, 15, 21, and 24 are deemed to be additional elements which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1, 4, 15, 21, and 24 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 4, 15, 21, and 24 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 23, 25, and 26 (which depend on claims 1 and 15 due to their respective chains of dependency), do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 23, 25, and 26 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional components as described above in the subject matter eligibility rejections of independent claims 1 and 15. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17-19, 22, 23, 25, and 26 merely add limitations that further narrow the abstract idea described in independent claims 1 and 15. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 are also nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights