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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 30 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 October 2025.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 calls for “obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors”; claim 3 refers to “at least two different types of sensor data” – it is unclear if the different “types” of data can be obtained from a single sensor, or if each type of data requires a different sensor (that is, at least two or more sensors). Further, claims 4 and 5 each refer to “first sensor data” and “second sensor data” – are these different segments of a single group of data obtained from one of the one or more sensors? Or is first sensor data from a first sensor and second sensor data from a second sensor? As presented it is entirely unclear how many sensors and types of data being sensed are involved in the process as a whole. Clarification is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a process, which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a method comprising obtaining data, detecting a location based on the data, predicting an activity based on the location, and generating a recommendation based on the activity.
The dependent claims appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate generating additional information (claims 3-5), , processing the data (claims 2, 6-9, 12), obtaining additional data and generating additional information based on the additional data (claim 10), and outputting the result (claim 11)
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of obtaining and processing data to report information; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) as based on the observation and evaluation of sensor data – a judgment or opinion regarding conditions based on the received data
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because any additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. No additional elements are recited as the method is entirely disembodied; the recited “one or more sensors” are tangentially involved but not positively recited as performing any part of the method as claimed. At best claim 11 calls for causing display of a result on “a computing device”, where this additional element does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception; as noted above the only possible additional element in claim 1 would be the “one or more sensors” that do not perform any of the steps of the method as claimed, as they are only recited as a passive source of data; further, even if positively recited the “sensors” are presented at a high level of generality and only for the insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(d), where determining the level of a biomarker by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. The wholly nonspecific “computing device” of claim 11 is recited at a high level of generality and only for the insignificant postsolution activity of outputting a result - see MPEP 2106.05 - Presenting data, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 - another type of activity that the courts have found to be 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.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself or the computer components performing the abstract idea; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhong (US 2022/0104761).
Regarding claim 1, Zhong discloses a method comprising:
obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors (paragraph [0062]);
detecting, based on the sensor data, a location of a user (paragraph [0061], [0065]);
predicting, based on the location of the user, an activity that the user will perform at the location (paragraph [0061], [0065], [0068]); and
generating a recommendation to control a glycemic response of the user to the predicted activity (paragraph [0060], [0061], [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhong further discloses that generating the recommendation further comprises: predicting the glycemic response of the user to the predicted activity; determining whether the glycemic response of the user to the predicted activity will cause an adverse health event; and responsive to determining that the glycemic response of the user to the predicted activity will cause the adverse health event, determining a mitigating therapy to prevent the adverse health event, wherein the recommendation includes the mitigating therapy (paragraph [0076], [0087]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhong further discloses that the detecting the location of the user is based on at least two different types of sensor data (paragraph [0065] – “Wi-Fi connection and/or access to 4G/5G cellular connections”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhong further discloses that the recommendation comprises administering an amount of a medicament to the user to control the glycemic response of the user to the predicted activity (paragraphs [0076], [0087]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhong further discloses communicating instructions to a medicament delivery system, the instructions causing the medicament delivery system to administer the amount of the medicament to the user (paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhong further discloses that the medicament comprises insulin (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhong further discloses that the predicting the activity comprises predicting, based on the location, a state of the activity, the state comprising a pre-activity state, an activity state, or a post-activity state, wherein the recommendation is based on the state of the activity (paragraph [0070], [0121]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhong further discloses receiving additional sensor data; determining, based on the additional sensor data, an additional location of the user; predicting, based on the additional location of the user, a different state of the activity; and generating an additional recommendation based on the different state of the activity (paragraph [0070], [0124]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhong further discloses causing display of the recommendation to control the glycemic response of the user on a computing device (paragraph [0024], [0044], [0105]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhong further discloses that the predicted activity comprises exercising, eating, or sleeping (paragraph [0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Gass (US 2018/0137937).
Regarding claim 4, Zhong discloses detecting the location of the user based on first and second sensor data (paragraph [0065]), but does not disclose detecting the location of the user based on first sensor data, and confirming the location of the user based on second sensor data. Gass teaches a method of generating a recommendation to control a glycemic response (abstract) comprising obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors and detecting, based on first sensor data, the location of the user and then confirming the location based on second sensor data (paragraph [0034], “where a burrito shop and a sandwich shop are next to each other, and the user has previously tagged one of their readings as being taken at the burrito shop, the next time the user is taking their blood sugar at that location, the DMS App would first suggest the burrito shop is the current location” where the first sensor data is current location information used to detect a possible location and where second sensor data is previous location information used to confirm the location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Zhong and used first sensor data to detect the location and second sensor data to confirm the location, as taught by Gass, in order to increase the accuracy of location detection.
Regarding claim 5, Zhong discloses detecting the location of the user based on first and second sensor data (paragraph [0065]), but does not disclose detecting at least two candidate locations of the user based on first sensor data; and selecting one of the at least two candidate locations as the location of the user based on second sensor data. Gass teaches a method of generating a recommendation to control a glycemic response (abstract) comprising obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors and detecting at least two candidate locations of the user based on first sensor data; and selecting one of the at least two candidate locations as the location of the user based on second sensor data (paragraph [0034], “where a burrito shop and a sandwich shop are next to each other, and the user has previously tagged one of their readings as being taken at the burrito shop, the next time the user is taking their blood sugar at that location, the DMS App would first suggest the burrito shop is the current location” where the first sensor data is current location information used to detect possible locations and where second sensor data is previous location information used to confirm the location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Zhong and used second sensor data to confirm which of possible locations suggested by first sensor data is the current location, as taught by Gass, in order to improve the accuracy of location detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0409053 to Taub
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN E TOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3791