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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 July 2026 has been entered.
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 26 and 27 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 26 calls for causing adjustment of medicament “by sending instruction from a computing device, displaying on the computing device instructions to the user, or both”. It is unclear how this “computing device” might relate to any other device performing computing as part of the method, particularly as the preamble defines a “computer-implemented method” and other steps are performed using a “control system”.
Further, the claim recites both that adjustment can be achieved by sending instructions, displaying instructions, or both, but then recites that doing so is achieved “by sending instructions from the computing device and displaying on the computing device instructions”, which removes the option of only one of these activities taking place.
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 1-3, 6-12, 21, 22 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 locations based on the data, selecting one of the locations based on the data, determining an activity based on the selected 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), processing the data (claims 2, 6-9, 12, 21), obtaining additional data and generating additional information based on the additional data (claim 10, 22), 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. The only recited additional elements are “a location prediction engine” and “an activity prediction engine”, which appear to be computing elements, recited at a high level of generality with no indication of particular specialized algorithms or components and which merely provide a technological environment for execution of the abstract idea itself. The recited “first source” and “second source” 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 additional elements of “a location prediction engine” and “an activity prediction engine” merely appear to be disembodied computer programming code, recited at a high level of generality and only for performance of the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), showing that these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions). The other possible additional elements in claim 1 would be the “first source” and “second source” 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 “sources” 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. Further, the “output” of the generated recommendation is itself entirely disembodied, such that its broadest reasonable interpretation is of a signal; even if embodied it appears no more than the insignificant postsolution activity of outputting the result of the abstract idea (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.
Claims 23-25 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 23 recites a method comprising obtaining data, detecting locations based on the data, selecting one of the locations based on the data, determining an activity based on the selected 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 outputting the result (claims 24, 25)
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. The only recited additional elements are a “computer-implemented” “location prediction engine”, “activity prediction engine”, and “activity-to-recommendation module”, which appear to be computing elements, recited at a high level of generality with no indication of particular specialized algorithms or components and which merely provide a technological environment for execution of the abstract idea itself. The recited “first source” and “second source” are tangentially involved but not positively recited as performing any part of the method as claimed. The recited “recommendation for mitigating therapy” is not a particular treatment or prophylaxis as this recommendation is not positively implemented nor is there any specificity as to what this might involve. These additional elements do 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.
Dependent claim 24 includes an optional “modifying medicament delivery”, which is also not a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as it is recited at a high level of generality with no specific as to what is being modified or how it is modified or how the modification might relate to any other aspect of the determination.
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 additional elements of “a location prediction engine”, “an activity prediction engine”, and “an activity-to recommendation module” merely appear to be disembodied computer programming code, recited at a high level of generality and only for performance of the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), showing that these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions). The other possible additional elements in claim 23 would be the “first source” and “second source” 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 “sources” 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. Further, the generated recommendation is itself entirely disembodied, such that its broadest reasonable interpretation is of a signal; even if embodied it appears no more than the insignificant postsolution activity of outputting the result of the abstract idea (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.
Claims 26, 27 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 26 recites a method comprising obtaining data, detecting locations based on the data, selecting one of the locations based on the data, determining an activity based on the selected location, generating a recommendation based on the activity, and causing an adjustment of a therapy or instructions.
The dependent claims appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate generating the information (claim 27)
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. The only recited additional elements are “a location prediction engine” and “an activity prediction engine”, which appear to be computing elements, recited at a high level of generality with no indication of particular specialized algorithms or components and which merely provide a technological environment for execution of the abstract idea itself. The recited “first source” and “second source” are tangentially involved but not positively recited as performing any part of the method as claimed. The disembodied optional “causing adjustment of medicament delivery” is not a particular treatment or prophylaxis as there is no particularity recited in the delivery, let alone any determination of what adjustment should be executed. These additional elements do 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 additional elements of “a location prediction engine” and “an activity prediction engine” merely appear to be disembodied computer programming code, recited at a high level of generality and only for performance of the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), showing that these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions). The other possible additional elements in claim 26 would be the “first source” and “second source” 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 “sources” 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. Further, the generated recommendation is itself entirely disembodied, such that its broadest reasonable interpretation is of a signal; even if embodied it appears no more than the insignificant postsolution activity of outputting the result of the abstract idea (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). Finally, the “causing adjustment” of medicament and/or instructions is entirely disembodied and recited at a high level of generality, where nonspecific adjustment of an unidentified medicament without even a determination of what adjustment should be performed is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, the effect of the output of the results where the adjustment can be entirely a subjective user response equivalent to the other alternative of adjusting delivered instructions (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 § 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) 1-3, 6-12, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 2022/0104761) in view of Su (US 2018/0041871).
Regarding claim 1, Zhong discloses a method for location-aided glycemic control comprising:
receiving, by a “location prediction engine” implemented at a computing device, sensor data from a source substantially in real time (paragraph [0062]);
determining, by the “location prediction engine” and based on the sensor data, a location of a user (paragraph [0061], [0065]);
determining, by an “activity prediction engine” implemented at the computing device and based on the location of the user, an activity that the user is performing or will perform at the location (paragraph [0061], [0065], [0068]);
generating a recommendation to control a glycemic response of the user to the activity (paragraph [0060], [0061], [0076]), and
outputting the recommendation for use in a therapy to mitigate the glycemic response (paragraph [0076]).
The Examiner notes that the disclosure of the instant invention sets forth that a “location prediction engine” is merely “various types of logic to predict the location 408 of a user” (paragraph [0099] as filed).
Zhong does not disclose the sensor data including first and second sensor data, and determining first and second candidate locations of the user based on the first sensor data and confirming selection of a location of the user from the candidate locations based on the second sensor data.
Su teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, first sensor data from a first source substantially in real time (paragraph [0090]);
determining, based on the first sensor data, two or more candidate locations of a user (paragraph [0090]);
receiving second sensor data from a second source (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]);
selecting a candidate location from the two or more candidate locations based, at least in part, on the second sensor data (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]); and
determining, based on the selected candidate location, an activity that the user is performing or will perform at the selected candidate location (paragraphs [0005], [0025], [0069]).
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 find first potential locations and second sensor data to narrow down to one of those potential locations, as taught by Su, in order to increase the accuracy of the final determined location for activity detection or predication.
Regarding claim 2, Zhong further discloses that generating the recommendation further comprises: determining the glycemic response of the user to the determined 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, Su further teaches that the first sensor data is a different type than the second sensor data (paragraphs [0090]-[0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Zhong, as modified by Su, using different types of sensor data, as further taught by Kim, in order to provide different information to inform the determination.
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 that the recommendation comprises 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 claims 9 and 21, Zhong further discloses that the predicting the activity comprises determining, based on the selected 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]). As modified by Su above, this would be the selected candidate location.
Regarding claim 10, Zhong further discloses receiving additional sensor data; determining, based on the additional sensor data, an additional location of the user; determining, 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]).
Regarding claim 22, Zhong further discloses that determining the activity that the user is performing or will perform at the location is based on historical data indicating an activity previously performed at the location (paragraph [0065], the use of data from the initial learning phase). As modified by Su, this location would be the “selected candidate location”.
Regarding claim 23, Zhong discloses a computer-implemented method performed by a glycemic control system (paragraph [0042]), the method comprising:
receiving, by a “location prediction engine” of the glycemic control system, sensor data from a source (paragraph [0062]);
determining, by the location prediction engine and based on the sensor data, a location of a user (paragraphs [0061], [0065]);
determining, by an “activity prediction engine” of the glycemic control system and based on the location of the user, an activity that the user is performing or will perform at the location (paragraph [0061], [0065], [0068]); and
generating, by an “activity-to-recommendation module” of the glycemic control system, a recommendation for mitigating therapy to control a predicted glycemic response of the user to the activity (paragraphs [0060], [0061], [0076]) using a machine learning model that has been trained using training data associating activities with mitigating therapies to output the mitigating therapy for the activity (paragraph [0070]).
The Examiner notes that the disclosure of the instant invention sets forth that a “location prediction engine” is merely “various types of logic to predict the location 408 of a user” (paragraph [0099] as filed).
Zhong does not disclose the sensor data including first and second sensor data from first and second sources, and determining two or more candidate locations of the user based on the first sensor data and selecting one of those candidate locations of the user as the location based on the second sensor data.
Su teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, first sensor data from a first source substantially in real time (paragraph [0090]);
determining, based on the first sensor data, two or more candidate locations of a user (paragraph [0090]);
receiving second sensor data from a second source (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]);
selecting a candidate location from the two or more candidate locations based, at least in part, on the second sensor data (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]); and
determining, based on the selected candidate location, an activity that the user is performing or will perform at the selected candidate location (paragraphs [0005], [0025], [0069]).
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 find first potential locations and second sensor data to narrow down to one of those potential locations, as taught by Su, in order to increase the accuracy of the final determined location for activity detection or predication.
Regarding claim 24, Zhong further discloses that the mitigating therapy comprises at least one of modifying medicament delivery to the user, prompting the user to ingest carbohydrates, or both modifying medicament delivery to the user and prompting the user to ingest carbohydrates (paragraph [0076], [0105]).
Regarding claim 25, Zhong further discloses that generating the recommendation comprises determining that the predicted glycemic response causes a hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic event (paragraphs [0076], [0087]).
Regarding claim 26, Zhong discloses a computer-implemented method performed by a glycemic control system (paragraph [0042]), the method comprising:
receiving, by a “location prediction engine” of the glycemic control system, sensor data from a source, wherein the sensor data is generated substantially in real time (paragraph [0062]);
determining, by the “location prediction engine” and based on the sensor data, a location of a user (paragraphs [0061], [0065]);
determining, by an” activity prediction engine” and based on the location of the user, an activity that the user is performing or will perform at the location (paragraph [0061], [0065], [0068]);
determining, by the glycemic control system, whether a predicted glycemic response to the activity is associated with an adverse health event (paragraphs [0076], [0087]);
in response to determining that the predicted glycemic response is associated with an adverse health event, determining and generating, without user input, a mitigating therapy recommendation configured to control the glycemic response of the user to the activity(paragraphs [0060], [0061], [0076], [0105]); and
based on the mitigating therapy recommendation, causing adjustment of medicament delivery to the user by sending instructions from a computing device, displaying on the computing device instructions to the user, or both causing adjustment of medicament delivery to the user by sending instructions from the computing device and displaying on the computing device instructions to the user (paragraph [0076], [0105]).
The Examiner notes that the disclosure of the instant invention sets forth that a “location prediction engine” is merely “various types of logic to predict the location 408 of a user” (paragraph [0099] as filed).
Zhong does not disclose the sensor data including first and second sensor data from first and second sources, and determining two or more candidate locations of the user based on the first sensor data and selecting one of those candidate locations of the user as the location based on the second sensor data.
Su teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, first sensor data from a first source substantially in real time (paragraph [0090]);
determining, based on the first sensor data, two or more candidate locations of a user (paragraph [0090]);
receiving second sensor data from a second source (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]);
selecting a candidate location from the two or more candidate locations based, at least in part, on the second sensor data (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]); and
determining, based on the selected candidate location, an activity that the user is performing or will perform at the selected candidate location (paragraphs [0005], [0025], [0069]).
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 find first potential locations and second sensor data to narrow down to one of those potential locations, as taught by Su, in order to increase the accuracy of the final determined location for activity detection or predication.
Regarding claim 27, Su further teaches that the first sensor data is a different type than the second sensor data, wherein at least one type of data is selected from the group consisting of GPS data, Wi-Fi data , Bluetooth data, and cellular antenna data (paragraphs [0090]-[0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Zhong, as modified by Su, using different types of sensor data including GPS data, Wi-Fi data , Bluetooth data, or cellular antenna data, as further taught by Kim, in order to provide different information to inform the determination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant argues that the use of a computing device to implement parts of the abstract idea integrates the abstract idea into a practical application due to “integral use of a machine to achieve performance” of the method; as presented, no part of the abstract idea includes any specific algorithm or processing that cannot be achieved using the human mind. Rather, no particular algorithm or method of “determining” or “selecting” has been recited at any level of specificity. The recited “prediction engines” are disclosed in the specification as being no more than logic, instructions, which in the complete absence of any more complicated or detailed recitation, are equivalent to a human thinking about received data and then making a choice.
Applicant next argues that “sending” or “displaying” instructions presents a practical application due to “integral use of a machine”; as presented, these are no more than output of a result at a high level of generality, with no specificity as to what these instructions are or how they are generated or how they might particularly relate to the actual abstract idea itself. 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.
Regarding the rejections under 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s remarks address only the teachings of Kim, not applied against the amended claims above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights