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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 02/18/2026 in which claims 1-11 were amended. New claim 12 has been added. Currently, claims 1-12 are pending for examination in this application.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11] The claim recites the limitation of “at least one aggressiveness parameter” in the 6th line of the claim. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, as the term “aggressiveness” can be considered to be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “aggressiveness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the scope of the associated “parameter” is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the “aggressiveness parameter” can be considered to be any alternative parameter utilized with the previously claimed “target parameter.”
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Connor et al. (PGPub 2020/0101225).
[Claim 11] O’Connor teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (figure 2, item 263) storing instructions (“programming code”) (figure 4, item 402; paragraph [0065], the examiner notes the program is denoted as item 269 in figure 2) which, when executed by a processor (figure 2, item 261), cause the processor (figure 2, item 261) to repeatedly determining a value of a control parameter (“insulin dosing requirements”) of a fluid infusion system (figure 2, item 200) for a diabetic patient (paragraph [0071]), based on data-based processing configured by user-input parameters (paragraph [0015]; “automatic delivery of an insulin based on inputs” relative to a user) including a target parameter (paragraph [0016]; “glucose value range”) and at least one aggressiveness parameter (see 112b interpretation above) (paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0072]; “activity level”; dosing requirements are altered based on user activity).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026, with regards to independent claim 11, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose the invention as claimed.
The examiner has fully considered the applicant’s arguments but they are not persuasive. It is the examiner’s position that given a careful reading, the claims do not distinguish over the prior art of record.
With regards to independent claim 11, the examiner notes that applicant’s representative has made no specific arguments relative to the claim. It is unclear if the claim was intended to incorporate the amended subject matter of independent claim 1, if the claim was intended to be amended to be a dependent claim, or if the claim was intended to remain an independent claim as presented. As such, the rejections repeated above remain valid.
In light of the remarks and standing rejection above, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON E FLICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/JASON E FLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 05/28/2026
Prosecution Insights