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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the preliminary amendment filed on 21 April 2023, the following has occurred: claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-15 have been amended; claims 4 and 9 have been canceled; claims 16-21 have been newly added.
Now claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on 21 April 2023 and 27 January 2025, have been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202011046143, filed on 22 October 2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 depends on canceled claim 4, while claim 21 depends on canceled claim 9. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method and systems for organizing data between a patient and remote service provider. The limitations of:
Claim 1, which is representative of claim 7
[… organizing …] data from an analyser […] to a remote [… location …], wherein the one or more analyser […] are configured to obtain data from samples and/or measurements taken of a patient, the method comprising providing an identity of the analyser […] to the remote [… location …] for obtaining a geographical and/or an organizational location of the identified analyser system; obtaining the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser […]; generating one or more rules associated with the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser […]; determining data to be [… provided …] based on one or more rules associated with the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser […]; and [… providing …] the determined data to the remote [… location …].
Claim 11
obtaining data from an analyser […], wherein the one or more analyser […] are configured to obtain data from samples and/or measurements taken of a patient, […]: obtain an identity of the analyser […]; and in response to obtainment of the identity of the analyser […]: [… provide …], to the analyser […], a geographical and/or an organizational location, or a confirmation of the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser […]; and/or [… provide …], to the analyser […] one or more rules, or a confirmation of the one or more rules, wherein the one or more rules are associated with the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser […].
, as drafted, is a system which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) via human interaction with various generic computer components. That is, by a human user interacting with a system comprising one or more devices and a server, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people, the Examiner notes as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. For example, by a human user interacting with a system comprising one or more devices and a server, the claim encompasses remotely monitoring the data of a patient and using their location to apply rules to the organization of data between a patient and a remote service provider. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system comprising one or more devices and a server, which implements the abstract idea. The system comprising one or more devices and a server, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general-purpose computers/ computer components implementing generic computer functions; see Applicant’s specification: Figures 8-10) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed at an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “transmitting data”. The “transmitting data” steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting data) and amounts to the mere transmission and/or receipt of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed at an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a system comprising one or more devices and a server, to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic hardware components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic hardware component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “transmitting data” were considered post/extra-solution activity and/or generally linking to a particular technological environment. The “transmitting data” steps have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 10 and 12-21 are similarly rejected because either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
Claim 2-3 and 8 further describes use of rules to organize data but does not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim 5 describes the labels of the data that is obtained but does not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim 6, 10 and 20-21 recite a processing unit and a local server, however these are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a general-purpose computers/ computer component implementing generic computer functions; see Applicant’s specification: Figure 8-10) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed at an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processing unit and a local server, to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic hardware components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic hardware component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claim 12 and 13 recites use of database but does not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim 14 further describes the communication of data but does not recite any new additional elements not already considered and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 15-19 recite systems for performing the method of claim 1, reciting generic computer components that have already been considered above, incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-11 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140187890 (hereafter “Mensinger”).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 1, Mensinger teaches a method (Mensinger: Fig. 1-2, paragraph [0006], “Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, are provided for remote monitoring of analyte data”) for
transmitting data from an analyser system comprising one or more analyser devices to a remote server, wherein the one or more analyser devices are configured to obtain data from samples and/or measurements taken of a patient (Mensinger: paragraph [0031], “remotely monitor health characteristics of one or more hosts. The health characteristics can include an analyte concentration of a host, such as glucose, or a bodily function, such as heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and the like… The information gathered by the host monitoring system can then be transmitted to one or more remote monitors used by caretakers… transmits information first to a remote server”, paragraph [0042], “the remote system 100 includes a continuous analyte monitoring system 8 including a sensor electronics module 12 and a continuous analyte sensor 10”, paragraph [0075], “provide measurement of levels of the analyte via a continuous analyte sensor, such as a continuous glucose sensor.”),
the method comprising providing an identity of the analyser system to the remote server for obtaining a geographical and/or an organizational location of the identified analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0007], “The server may register at least one of the remote monitor, the receiver, an analyte sensor coupled to the receiver, and the registration may include a code provided by a health care provider”, paragraph [0051], “The registration process may be performed to register the receiver 102, the continuous analyte sensor 10, the delivery pump 2, the glucose meter 4, the remote monitor 114, and/or the host 199 with the secure server 110”, paragraph [0117], “The gateway 104 may also be configured to gather an identifier of the receiver 102… and provide the identifier to the secure server 110”, paragraph [0121], “the secure server 110 may register the identity of the users of remote monitors 114A-114M and a schedule for when each entity performs monitoring”, paragraph [0126], “an authenticator and authorizer may determine whether the sender of the request is authorized by requiring a user to provide a security credential (e.g., a user identifier, a password, a stored security token, and/or a verification identifier provided by text message, phone, or email) at a user interface presented on a processor”. The Examiner notes that “for obtaining a geographical and/or an organizational location” is an intended use of the providing of an identity that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the providing of an identity);
obtaining the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0031], “other characteristics of a host can be monitored to facilitate care of a host, such as a location of the host, state of a host (e.g., exercising, sleeping, or working) and the like. The health characteristics and other characteristics can be gathered using a host monitoring system that incorporates a computing device, such as a smart phone, and one or more sensors, such a continuous glucose sensor, heart-rate monitor, GPS device, etc.”, paragraph [0083], “location information (which may be provided by a location module 269 providing location information, such as global positioning/navigation system information)”, paragraph [0172], “across a plurality of host patients and/or across a plurality of geographic locations (or regions)”, paragraph [0235], “the secure server 110 may use the location of the receiver 102, gateway 104, host 199, and/or remote monitor(s) 114 when determining”);
generating one or more rules associated with the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0007], “The server may comprise at least one processor configured to receive analyte sensor data from the receiver, process the analyte sensor data to detect the event, and forward, when the event is detected, the notification message to the remote monitor based on one or more rules mapping the event to the remote monitor designated to receive the notification message for the detected event. The event may be detected based on a first set of rules at the server, wherein the first set of rules used to generate the notification message may be different from a second set of rules used to detect alerts sent to the receiver coupled to a sensor system at the host”, paragraph [0129], “the one or more predefined triggers may be variable and adjustable based user input and/or programmatically based on one or more rules at the secure server 110”, paragraph [0154], “changes may be made to the rules used to trigger notification messages, the designation of primary monitors (including time and location designations), the designation of secondary monitors (including time and location designations)”, paragraph [0235], “the secure server 110 may use the location of the receiver 102, gateway 104, host 199, and/or remote monitor(s) 114 when determining… when a host-patient is in a first location and travels to a second location, the secure server 110 may, based on rules, select a first remote monitor 114A near the first location and, when the host-patent moves to the second location, select a second remote monitor 114B located near that second location”. The Examiner notes that location is a factor is selection (i.e. generation) of a set of rules, which teaches at least the “associated” language under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
determining data to be transmitted based on one or more rules associated with the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0053], “determine whether one or more of the remote monitors 114A-114M, such as remote monitor 114A, should be sent a notification message regarding an event”, paragraph [0063], “send at 196 additional information to the remote monitor. The content of the additional information sent from the secure server 110 to the remote monitor 114 may be automatically determined or may be defined”, paragraph [0104], “determine which sensor data is to be transmitted based on one or more of many characteristics of the host, the receiver 102, a user of the receiver 102, a remote monitor 114, and/or characteristics of the sensor data.”, paragraph [0235], “the secure server 110 may use the location of the receiver 102, gateway 104, host 199, and/or remote monitor(s) 114 when determining… when a host-patient is in a first location and travels to a second location, the secure server 110 may, based on rules, select a first remote monitor 114A near the first location and, when the host-patent moves to the second location, select a second remote monitor 114B located near that second location”); and
transmitting the determined data to the remote server (Mensinger: paragraph [0031], “The information gathered by the host monitoring system can then be transmitted to one or more remote monitors used by caretakers… the host monitoring system transmits information first to a remote server”, paragraph [0235], “the secure server 110 may use the location of the receiver 102, gateway 104, host 199, and/or remote monitor(s) 114 when determining… when a host-patient is in a first location and travels to a second location, the secure server 110 may, based on rules, select a first remote monitor 114A near the first location and, when the host-patent moves to the second location, select a second remote monitor 114B located near that second location”).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 2, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the determining of the data to be transmitted is based on one or more rules available in the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0048], “the receiver 102 may be configured differently than the remote monitor 114. For example, the receiver 102 may include a different set of rules defining… although the receiver 102 may trigger alerts on its own (e.g. applying thresholds to sensor data received from sensor system 8)”, paragraphs [0056]-[0058], “the rules used to trigger alerts to host 199 at receiver 102 may be different from the rules used to send notification messages to remote monitor 114… the receiver 102 may trigger an alert based on rules residing within the receiver”).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 3, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the one or more rules are provided to the analyser system by the remote server (Mensinger: paragraph [0059], “During the configuration of the remote monitor 114, the secure server 110 may prompt the parent to select a set of rules that are identical to those being used by the child's receiver. In this example, any subsequent changes made to the set of rules being used for the child's receiver would be programmatically propagated to the set of rules being used”, paragraph [0170], “the secure server 110 may adapt the set of rules used for a host-patient. For example, the set of rules for a remote monitor 114 may be predetermined based on some basic host-patient demographics. After initial use of remote monitoring system 100, secure server 110 may programically adjust thresholds used to trigger some or all events”. The rules are provided by the remote server, under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 5, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein data is obtained from analysis of one or more biological sampled and/or one or more non-invasive measurements from a patient (Mensinger: paragraph [0031], “remotely monitor health characteristics of one or more hosts. The health characteristics can include an analyte concentration of a host, such as glucose, or a bodily function, such as heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and the like”).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 6, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a data processing unit and configured to cause execution of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the data processing unit (Mensinger: Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0256]-[0258], “Various implementations of the subject matter described herein may be realized in digital electronic circuitry… one or more computer programs that are executable and/or interpretable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor, which may be special or general purpose, coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmit data and instructions to, a storage system, at least one input device, and at least one output device… and may be implemented in a high-level procedural and/or object-oriented programming language, and/or in assembly/machine language. As used herein, the term "machine-readable medium" refers to any non-transitory computer program product,”; Also see mappings of claim 1, incorporated herein).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 7 and 8
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are analogous to Claim(s) 1 and 2, thus Claim(s) 7 and 8 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1 and 2.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 10, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the analyser system further comprises a local server implementing a point of care management system configured to provide device management of the one or more analyser devices (Mensinger: Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0038]-[0041], “remote monitoring system 100 includes a plurality of host monitoring systems 198A-198N connected to a plurality of remote monitors 114A-114M via network 118. Each host 198 monitoring system may be one or more health monitoring devices that gather health-related data associated with a host and transmit the health-related data via network 108. Exemplary implementations of health monitoring systems 198A-198N are described in more detail elsewhere in this disclosure, but in some implementations can include one or more sensors and computing devices operably coupled to the sensors to gather, process and transmit the health-related data… each host monitoring system 198A-198N comprises a smartphone, such as an iPhone from Apple, Inc., and, likewise, each remote monitor 114A-114M has a smart mobile telephone, such as an iPhone. Each host mobile telephone has a host software application downloaded from a server of network 108, the application configuring the mobile telephone to perform any of the functions by host monitoring system 198 described herein, including gathering and transmitting health-related data used in remote monitoring system 100”. The Examiner notes a mobile phone storing data locally, reads on a local server under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 11, Mensinger teaches a remote server (Mensinger: Fig. 1-2, paragraph [0006], “Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, are provided for remote monitoring of analyte data”, paragraph [0031], “remotely monitor health characteristics of one or more hosts… transmits information first to a remote server”) for
obtaining data from an analyser system comprising one or more analyser devices, wherein the one or more analyser devices are configured to obtain data from samples and/or measurements taken of a patient (Mensinger: paragraph [0031], “remotely monitor health characteristics of one or more hosts. The health characteristics can include an analyte concentration of a host, such as glucose, or a bodily function, such as heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and the like… The information gathered by the host monitoring system can then be transmitted to one or more remote monitors used by caretakers… transmits information first to a remote server”, paragraph [0042], “the remote system 100 includes a continuous analyte monitoring system 8 including a sensor electronics module 12 and a continuous analyte sensor 10”, paragraph [0075], “provide measurement of levels of the analyte via a continuous analyte sensor, such as a continuous glucose sensor”), the remote server being configured to:
obtain an identity of the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0007], “The server may register at least one of the remote monitor, the receiver, an analyte sensor coupled to the receiver, and the registration may include a code provided by a health care provider”, paragraph [0051], “The registration process may be performed to register the receiver 102, the continuous analyte sensor 10, the delivery pump 2, the glucose meter 4, the remote monitor 114, and/or the host 199 with the secure server 110”, paragraph [0117], “The gateway 104 may also be configured to gather an identifier of the receiver 102… and provide the identifier to the secure server 110”, paragraph [0121], “the secure server 110 may register the identity of the users of remote monitors 114A-114M and a schedule for when each entity performs monitoring”, paragraph [0126], “an authenticator and authorizer may determine whether the sender of the request is authorized by requiring a user to provide a security credential (e.g., a user identifier, a password, a stored security token, and/or a verification identifier provided by text message, phone, or email) at a user interface presented on a processor”. The Examiner notes that “for obtaining a geographical and/or an organizational location” is an intended use of the providing of an identity that is not required to occur. This feature has been fully considered by the Examiner; however, the limitation does not provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art because it is an intended use or result of the providing of an identity); and in response to obtainment of the identity of the analyser system:
transmit, to the analyser system, a geographical and/or an organizational location, or a confirmation of the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0031], “other characteristics of a host can be monitored to facilitate care of a host, such as a location of the host, state of a host (e.g., exercising, sleeping, or working) and the like. The health characteristics and other characteristics can be gathered using a host monitoring system that incorporates a computing device, such as a smart phone, and one or more sensors, such a continuous glucose sensor, heart-rate monitor, GPS device, etc.”, paragraph [0083], “location information (which may be provided by a location module 269 providing location information, such as global positioning/navigation system information)”, paragraph [0172], “across a plurality of host patients and/or across a plurality of geographic locations (or regions)”, paragraph [0235], “the secure server 110 may use the location of the receiver 102, gateway 104, host 199, and/or remote monitor(s) 114 when determining”); and/or
transmit, to the analyser system one or more rules, or a confirmation of the one or more rules, wherein the one or more rules are associated with the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0007], “The server may comprise at least one processor configured to receive analyte sensor data from the receiver, process the analyte sensor data to detect the event, and forward, when the event is detected, the notification message to the remote monitor based on one or more rules mapping the event to the remote monitor designated to receive the notification message for the detected event. The event may be detected based on a first set of rules at the server, wherein the first set of rules used to generate the notification message may be different from a second set of rules used to detect alerts sent to the receiver coupled to a sensor system at the host”, paragraph [0129], “the one or more predefined triggers may be variable and adjustable based user input and/or programmatically based on one or more rules at the secure server 110”, paragraph [0154], “changes may be made to the rules used to trigger notification messages, the designation of primary monitors (including time and location designations), the designation of secondary monitors (including time and location designations)”, paragraph [0235], “the secure server 110 may use the location of the receiver 102, gateway 104, host 199, and/or remote monitor(s) 114 when determining… when a host-patient is in a first location and travels to a second location, the secure server 110 may, based on rules, select a first remote monitor 114A near the first location and, when the host-patent moves to the second location, select a second remote monitor 114B located near that second location”. The Examiner notes that location is a factor is selection (i.e. generation) of a set of rules, which teaches at least the “associated” language under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 14, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the remote server is further configured to perform the acts of obtainment and transmittal at least during an initial setup of the analyser system or continuously during up-time of the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0031], “remotely monitor health characteristics of one or more hosts. The health characteristics can include an analyte concentration of a host, such as glucose, or a bodily function, such as heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and the like… The information gathered by the host monitoring system can then be transmitted to one or more remote monitors used by caretakers… transmits information first to a remote server”, paragraph [0042], “the remote system 100 includes a continuous analyte monitoring system 8 including a sensor electronics module 12 and a continuous analyte sensor 10”, paragraph [0051], “the secure server 110 may register and/or configure one or more of the receiver 102, the continuous analyte sensor 10, the delivery pump 2, the glucose meter 4, and the host 199 before process 197 is initiated… configure one or more rules used to trigger notification messages to the remote monitors”).
REGARDING CLAIM(S) 15-17 and 19
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 are analogous to Claim(s) 2-3 and 5, thus Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2-3 and 5.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 18, Mensinger teaches a health care system comprising an analyser system and a remote server (Mensinger: paragraph [0031], “remotely monitor health characteristics of one or more hosts. The health characteristics can include an analyte concentration of a host, such as glucose, or a bodily function, such as heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and the like… The information gathered by the host monitoring system can then be transmitted to one or more remote monitors used by caretakers… transmits information first to a remote server”, paragraph [0042], “the remote system 100 includes a continuous analyte monitoring system 8 including a sensor electronics module 12 and a continuous analyte sensor 10”, paragraph [0075], “provide measurement of levels of the analyte via a continuous analyte sensor, such as a continuous glucose sensor.”) configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 4.
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 20, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the analyser system further comprises a local server implementing a point of care management system configured to provide device management of the one or more analyser devices (Mensinger: Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0038]-[0041], “remote monitoring system 100 includes a plurality of host monitoring systems 198A-198N connected to a plurality of remote monitors 114A-114M via network 118. Each host 198 monitoring system may be one or more health monitoring devices that gather health-related data associated with a host and transmit the health-related data via network 108. Exemplary implementations of health monitoring systems 198A-198N are described in more detail elsewhere in this disclosure, but in some implementations can include one or more sensors and computing devices operably coupled to the sensors to gather, process and transmit the health-related data… each host monitoring system 198A-198N comprises a smartphone, such as an iPhone from Apple, Inc., and, likewise, each remote monitor 114A-114M has a smart mobile telephone, such as an iPhone. Each host mobile telephone has a host software application downloaded from a server of network 108, the application configuring the mobile telephone to perform any of the functions by host monitoring system 198 described herein, including gathering and transmitting health-related data used in remote monitoring system 100”. The Examiner notes a mobile phone storing data locally, reads on a local server under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 21, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the analyser system further comprises a local server implementing a point of care management system configured to provide device management of the one or more analyser devices (Mensinger: Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0038]-[0041], “remote monitoring system 100 includes a plurality of host monitoring systems 198A-198N connected to a plurality of remote monitors 114A-114M via network 118. Each host 198 monitoring system may be one or more health monitoring devices that gather health-related data associated with a host and transmit the health-related data via network 108. Exemplary implementations of health monitoring systems 198A-198N are described in more detail elsewhere in this disclosure, but in some implementations can include one or more sensors and computing devices operably coupled to the sensors to gather, process and transmit the health-related data… each host monitoring system 198A-198N comprises a smartphone, such as an iPhone from Apple, Inc., and, likewise, each remote monitor 114A-114M has a smart mobile telephone, such as an iPhone. Each host mobile telephone has a host software application downloaded from a server of network 108, the application configuring the mobile telephone to perform any of the functions by host monitoring system 198 described herein, including gathering and transmitting health-related data used in remote monitoring system 100”. The Examiner notes a mobile phone storing data locally, reads on a local server under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20140187890 (hereafter “Mensinger”), in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20120244886 (hereafter “Blom”).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 12, Mensinger teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the remote server is further configured to determine the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser system [… and …] retrieval of the […] information from a database (Mensinger: paragraph [0083], “location information (which may be provided by a location module 269 providing location information, such as global positioning/navigation system information)”, paragraph [0231], “validating with server if the receiver is owned by someone else (via comparison of receiver serial numbers to a database”, paragraph [0235], “the secure server 110 may use the location of the receiver 102, gateway 104, host 199, and/or remote monitor(s) 114 when determining”).
Mensinger may not explicitly teach (underlined below for clarity):
wherein the remote server is further configured to determine the geographical and/or the organizational location of the analyser system by retrieval of the location information from a database.
Blom teaches (Blom: paragraph [0046], “the disease tracking and alert platform 103 includes a health database 303 that can be updated by and utilized by an analysis module 305… disease information includes health, location, timing and other disease-related information (e.g., a disease name, a disease strain, etc.) about one or more patients having a disease or other spreadable condition… store the disease information with information including the assigned geographic location, timing information about when the disease information was taken, and information about the disease involved and the health (e.g., deceased, contagious, the state of the symptoms, etc.) of patients associated with the disease. The analysis module 305 can then retrieve information from the health database and process the information to determine trends and other analysis of the spread of disease using one or more geographic locations”, paragraph [0069], “The association can be via mapping the GPS coordinates (e.g., a home location, a current location, or future location) or cell information from the UE 101 to one of the geographic locations representing regions stored in the health database 303”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include using a database to determine location within the location and use of database to remotely monitor an analyser system as taught by Mensinger with the motivation of “deliver value and convenience to consumers” (Blom: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claim 13, Mensinger and Blom teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the remote server is further configured to retrieve the location information from a database based on the obtained identity of the analyser system (Mensinger: paragraph [0117], “gather an identifier of the receiver 102 (or the receiver may automatically provide the identifier without a request for the identifier from the gateway 104) and provide the identifier to the secure server 110 to allow the secure server 110 to associate the received sensor data with the host 199, receiver, and any previously provided sensor data stored at secure server 110 (or a repository coupled to secure server 110) associated with the host”, paragraph [0231], “validating with server if the receiver is owned by someone else (via comparison of receiver serial numbers to a database”, paragraph [0235], “the secure server 110 may use the location of the receiver 102, gateway 104, host 199, and/or remote monitor(s) 114 when determining”).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 12, incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20120265029 (hereafter “Fahey”) teaches remote monitoring and anaylsys using rules to control the transmission of high-resolution data.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170332951 (hereafter “Ahmad”) teaches remote monitoring of patient measurements using rules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew E Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-8323. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5:00 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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/A.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights