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 .
Status of Amendments
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9-12 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendment to the Claims and Remarks filed on 05/05/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9-12 are amended claims.
Claims 2, 4, and 7-8 have been cancelled and will not be considered at this time.
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, 3, 5-6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without
significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9-12 are drawn to a method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising registering one or more sensors possessed by the user in a sensor list based on a sensor identifier of each of the one or more sensors, wherein each of the one or more sensors is inserted into a body of the user to continuously measure biometric information of the user for a set use period; calculating a total usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user based on usage history information of each sensor registered in the sensor list and a usage period of each sensor; determining whether a remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached an order guidance period based on the total usage period; when the remaining usage period of the one or more sensors has reached the order guidance period, providing an order guidance message to the user; additionally registering a new sensor during use of the one or more sensors; when the new sensor is additionally registered, updating the sensor list; and re-calculating the total usage period based on the updated sensor list, and determining whether the remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached the order guidance period based on the re-calculated total usage period.
These steps amount to certain methods of organizing human activity which
includes functions relating to managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods
of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – also note MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) stating certain activity
between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing
human activity” grouping).
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the
judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 1 recites transmitting the measured biometric information to the user terminal. The steps amounts to a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination
of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the
abstract idea on a computer.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the Claim 1 recites the additional element of transmitting the measured biometric information to the user terminal.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more
than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered
combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements
taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer
implementation.
For the reasons stated, these claims fail to amount to significantly more and are
consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Analysis of Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 3 recites the determining of whether the remaining usage
period of the one or more sensors has reached the order guidance period further
comprises determining whether one of the one or more sensors possessed by the user
is used, and the total usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user is
calculated based on the usage period of each sensor possessed by the user and the
number of the one or more sensors possessed by the user based on a time point when
the user uses the one of the one or more sensors.
Dependent claim 5 recites determining whether a sensor registered as a sensor
currently being used by the user is removed; at the time of removing the sensor
registered as the sensor currently being used by the user, determining whether a
remaining usage period of the sensor registered as the sensor currently being used by
the user exists; and when the remaining usage period of the sensor currently being
used exists, re- calculating the total usage period of the one or more sensors by
subtracting the remaining usage period of the sensor currently being used from the total
usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user, whether the remaining
usage period of the one or more sensors has reached the order guidance period is
determined based on the re-calculated total usage period of the one or more sensors.
Dependent claim 6 recites wherein the determining of whether the sensor
registered as the sensor currently being used by the user is removed comprises, when
a sensor different from the sensor registered as the sensor currently being used is
newly registered to be used, determining that the sensor registered as the sensor
currently being used is removed.
Dependent claim 9 recites wherein the one or more sensors are one or more
sensors for continuous measurement of blood glucose.
Dependent claim 10 recites one or more sensors are provided to be packaged in
a box, a code corresponding to each of the packaged one or more sensors is disposed
on or in the box, a sensor identifier of each of the one or more sensors is acquired from
the code, and the packaged one or more sensors are registered as the one or more
sensors possessed by the user based on the acquired sensor identifier.
Dependent claim 11 recites a code having a sensor identifier is disposed on each
of one or more sensors, the sensor identifier is acquired from the code, the one or more
sensors are registered as the one or more sensors possessed by the user based on the
acquired sensor identifier.
Dependent claim 12 recites providing a list of the one or more sensors possessed by the user to the user in response to a request of the user; and when a
deletion request for selecting a sensor which the user requests to delete from the list is
input, updating the list by deleting the selected sensor from the list, whether the
remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached the order guidance period is determined based on the updated list.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-12 only serve to further
limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 accordingly, and hence are
nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent
claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The ordered limitation in Claim 1 stating: “and re-calculating the total usage period based on the updated sensor list, and determining whether the remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached the order guidance period based on the re-calculated total usage period” is free of the
prior art.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Park (AU 2019220109 A1) teaches determining the expiration date of continuous blood glucose measurement system and determining the calculation of a remaining usage period of the medical sensor.
Cox (US 20200185107 A1) teaches generating the activation of more than one sensor and transmitting instructions to active additional sensors.
Dilmaghani et al, Wireless Sensor Networks for Monitoring Physiological Signals of Multiple Patients, teaching the design of a novel wireless sensor network structure to monitor patients with chronic diseases in their own homes through a remote monitoring system of physiological signals.
While Park teaches determining the remaining usage period of a medical sensor
and Cox teaches the activation of additional sensors, neither teaches, individually or in
combination, re-calculating the total usage period based on the updated sensor list, and determining whether the remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached the order guidance period based on the re-calculated total usage period. Dilmaghani does not cure the deficiency. Therefore, Claim 1 and its dependent claims (Claims 3, 5-6, and 9-12) is free of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 5-8 “Claims Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 101” filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Claim 1 is applied with or by use of a particular machine to carry out the limitations of Claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP 2106.05(b), The considerations for a particular machine include: (I) the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, (II) whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method; and (III) whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or field of use. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The particular machine is not particularly claimed in the claim limitations. The Specification describes the sensors that is “partially inserted into the body and generates a biosignal representing the user's blood glucose value from the body fluid” and “the one or more sensors may be one or more sensors for continuous
measurement of blood glucose”. These definitions do not particularly claim a particular sensor or machine, but rather provides a very broad description of what the sensor does that can be accomplished by a variety of well-known sensors or medical devices in the field. In terms of whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, the sensor is actively performing the steps of the claimed invention. The claims do not specify who or what is performing some of the steps of the claimed invention. For example, looking at Claim 1, the claim does not specify who or what is responsible for registering one or more sensors, calculating a total usage period of the one or more sensors, determining whether a remaining usage period of the one or more sensors, additionally registering a new sensor, updating the sensor list and re-calculating the total usage period based on the updated sensor list. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that a human operator is carrying out the steps of the claimed invention. In terms of whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or field of use, the sensor(s) are not being modified in any way nor are they operating in a manner beyond their intended use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not meet the criteria for a practical application of a particular machine.
Applicant submits that, similar to Enfish, claim 1 in the present application is directed to improvements in the function of computers and medical device technologies, such that a method of guiding a use period of a sensor to a user can accurately guide the usage period of the sensor possessed by the user so that the user can order the sensors based on this by determining whether a remaining usage period of the last sensor has reached an order guidance period. Furthermore, a method of guiding a use period of a sensor to a user can accurately guide the usage period of the sensor possessed by the user by excluding the transferred sensors. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enfish recited a self-referential database having two key features: all entity types can be stored in a single table; and the table rows can contain information defining the table columns. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1332, 118 USPQ2d at 1687. Although these features were taught by a single prior art reference (thus anticipating the claims), Microsoft Corp., 662 Fed. App'x at 986, the features were not conventional and thus were considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology. In particular, they enabled the claimed table to achieve benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements (MPEP 2106.05(d)(1)). Enfish is not similar to the claimed invention. An improvement to the abstract idea of accurately guiding the usage period of a sensor by ordering the sensors based on this by determining whether a remaining usage period of the last sensor has reached an order guidance period and excluding the transferred sensors does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG,921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). There is no indication in the instant disclosure that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. Here, the improvement is to collecting data on sensor usage and determination of total usage period of a sensor. The instant application and claim language fail to detail how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Claims 1 can accurately guide the usage period the sensor possessed by the user to solve the problem of the frequent notification of the remaining usage period or the end of the usage period of the sensor for continuous blood glucose measurement causes inconvenience to the user, and furthermore, when the user has a plurality of sensors for continuous blood glucose measurement, the notification of the remaining usage period or the end of the use period of individual continuous blood glucose measurement sensors is unnecessary and gives only inconvenience to the user. By including the steps of the claims, Claim 1 can accurately guide the usage period of the sensor possessed by the user to the solve the problem of inconvenient frequent notifications. Thus, the additional elements of claim 1 are more than “apply it” or are not “mere instructions” when the claims recites a technological solution to a technological problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites registering one or more sensors possessed by the user in a sensor list based on a sensor identifier of each of the one or more sensors, wherein each of the one or more sensors is inserted into a body of the user to continuously measure biometric information of the user for a set use period; calculating a total usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user based on usage history information of each sensor registered in the sensor list and a usage period of each sensor; determining whether a remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached an order guidance period based on the total usage period; when the remaining usage period of the one or more sensors has reached the order guidance period, providing an order guidance message to the user; additionally registering a new sensor during use of the one or more sensors; when the new sensor is additionally registered, updating the sensor list; and re-calculating the total usage period based on the updated sensor list, and determining whether the remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached the order guidance period based on the re-calculated total usage period, which are part of the abstract idea. The additional element of . An improvement to the abstract idea of guiding the usage period the sensor possessed by the user to solve the problem of the frequent notification does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG,921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). There is no indication in the instant disclosure that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. Here, the improvement is to determining the total usage period of a sensor. The instant application and claim language fail to detail how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Examiner would also note that the problem of frequent notification being an inconvenience and, in the case of multiple sensors, the frequent notification being unnecessary and inconvenient are not explicitly recited in the claims and is not a technical problem. While Examiner acknowledges that this element is disclosed in the specification, the rejection of the claims is to the claimed invention, not to the disclosed invention.
Applicant asserts that claim 1 does not recite any abstract idea, much less the abstract ideas set forth by the Examiner in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the analysis of patient subject matter eligibility should end with the conclusion that claim 1 is patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites registering one or more sensors possessed by the user in a sensor list based on a sensor identifier of each of the one or more sensors, wherein each of the one or more sensors is inserted into a body of the user to continuously measure biometric information of the user for a set use period; calculating a total usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user based on usage history information of each sensor registered in the sensor list and a usage period of each sensor; determining whether a remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached an order guidance period based on the total usage period; when the remaining usage period of the one or more sensors has reached the order guidance period, providing an order guidance message to the user; additionally registering a new sensor during use of the one or more sensors; when the new sensor is additionally registered, updating the sensor list; and re-calculating the total usage period based on the updated sensor list, and determining whether the remaining usage period of the one or more sensors possessed by the user has reached the order guidance period based on the re-calculated total usage period, which are part of the abstract idea. Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow for collecting data on the usage of a sensor and determining the remaining usage period of the sensor. The method of organizing human activity includes the grouping of managing personal behavior and interactions between people, which includes following rules or instructions (see MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(II)(C)). Examiner would suggest looking at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C): Other examples of managing personal behavior recited in a claim include: iii. a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982) for further guidance. The step of transmitting the measured biometric information to the user terminal. The steps amounts to a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-10 “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102”, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 3, and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10 “Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 103” filed 05/05/2025, with respect to Claims 10-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
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 Patricia K Edouard whose telephone number is (571)272-6084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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.
/P.K.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights