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 with traverse of Group II: Claims 10 - 18 in the reply filed on 28 JANUARY 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 2 8, 2026 . The traversal is on the following grounds: The applicant argues at [Page 2, Paragraph 1 – Paragraph 5, and Page 4 2 nd Paragraph ] that the Cichosz reference cited does not destroy the unity of invention between the claims of Groups I and II because Cichosz et. al. uses a combination of CGM and HRV measurements to detect glycemic even t s, and the Applicant’s invention uses only HRV to determine glucose levels. As recited in the instant claims, there is nothing particular that indicates that only HRV is used to determine glucose levels. Further, as recited with “calculating an equivalent to HbA1C and plasma glucose levels”, the calculation limitation is not connected to any of the previously-recited HRV parameters or ECG information. The argument is not persuasive. The applicant argues at [Page 2, Paragraph 6 ] that Cichosz refers to a binary classifier of an even t , whereas the invention refers to a numerically measured blood glucose level and a 2 -3 month average level. There is nothing particular recited in the claim that the plasma glucose level is specifically a numerically measured blood glucose level. Rather, the limitation can be interpreted broadly as a relative blood glucose level, which would include hypoglycemia, which is a “low plasma glucose level”. Further, each of the participants in the study from which the hypoglycemia is determined have a calculated HbA1c level (the 2 – 3 month average level), the mean of which is calculated at [Page 732, Left Column, 6 th Full Paragraph]. There is nothing particular claimed about the context of the inputs to the calculation . The argument is not persuasive. The applicant argues at [Page 2, Last Paragraph] and [Page 5, Bottom] – [Page 6, 1 st Full Paragraph] that Cichosz uses fixed-sized windows, and the Applicant defines different window sizes using a sliding window approach. The limitation in Applicant’s claims recites “with predefined window sizes and offsets”. There is nothing particular recited in the claim limitation that precludes those window sizes from being predefined as a fixed-size window. The argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues at Page 4, 2 nd Full Paragraph] that Cichosz specifies a machine learning algorithm to detect hypoglycemic events, which is different from the claimed invention that detects glucose levels from HRV. As recited in the instant claims, there is nothing particular that indicates that the HRV is used to determine glucose levels. The limitations are recited with HRV elements separate of the calculating an equivalent to HbA1C and plasma glucose levels limitation. These is nothing tying HRV into the recited calculation. The argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues at [Page 4, bottom] – [Page 5, Top] that extracting a clean ECG interval is performed in Cichosz by excluding complete ECG signals, and the instant invention excludes specific beats. As recited with a clean ECG interval, there is nothing particular that limits the interval to being individual beats or “marking dirty beats”. The argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues at [Page 5, Paragraph 1 – 2] that Cichosz only measures standard HRV parameters and not an “extended set” that are annotated by A, C, and S, and with short, medium, long, and extra long terms. As recited, extended set of HRV parameters is very broad, as there is no clear recitation of what constitutes a “parameter” or what “extended” indicates. The term can be broadly interpreted as calculating HRV-associated parameters (like “peaks” and “RR intervals”) extended along a period of time (like C ichosz’s 5 minutes). The argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues at [Page 6, 2 nd Full Paragraph] – [Page 7, 1 st Full Paragraph] that Cichosz does not disclose applying a set of threshold decisions to detect ability to regulate a predefined glucose level with selecting features that are “particularly distinguishing or informative for classification”, and that the claimed invention analyzes a different set of features (particularly HRV) and specifies their features, not implying using a machine learning algorithm to develop a model. As stated above, there is nothing particularly recited in the claim that actually ties HRV to glucose level determinations. Further, the broad term applying a set of threshold decisions does not indicate a particular numeric threshold. Rather, it can broadly include, the presence of a feature at all (like “normal” vs “hypoglycemic”), a numeric threshold of determining if the level is below 3.9 mmol/L, or a binary logistic regression classifier threshold value. There is nothing particular in the claim that precludes the decisions from involving machine learning. The argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues at [Page 7, 4 th Full Paragraph] – [Page 8 , Paragraph 1] that the claimed invention provides means or calculating and presenting the AGP (ambulatory glucose profile) derived from HRV. There is nothing particularly recited that indicates that AGP and glucose statistics are calculated from HRV. The limitation form reports containing AGP and achieved glucose statistics broadly includes statistics that would be in an AGP report ( average glucose level over a period of time, where the period of time is reported ) and statistics of achieved glucose ( average blood glucose levels, hypoglycemia events, etc. ). As described above, there is nothing particularly recited in the claim that indicates that this is a the full standardized, one-page glucose report or that it is derived from HRV and not CGM , just that reports are made, which broadly includes reporting statistics in figures and text in a published journal. The argument is not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Information Disclosure Statement There are references listed in the specification on [Page 1, Paragraphs 3 – 5] and [Page 2, Top – 1 st Full Paragraph], [Page 4, Line 14], and [Page 6, line 17]. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Specification The use of the term BLUETOOTH TM , which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application at [Page 7, Line 18] . The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections Claim 1 0 is objected to because of the following informalities: · The expanded form of acronym “ AGP ” is not defined in the claim set. For the first recitation of “ AGP ” in the claims (Claim 1 ), an accompanying expanded form of the acronym, “ ambulatory glucose profile ”, is necessary. Claim 11 and Claim 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “wherein using marking of dirty beats comprising” in line 2 of each claim is suggested to be revised to “wherein using marking of dirty beats comprises :” for readability. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a period after the term “before the P wave of the second beat” in line 11 instead of a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “wherein the step of applying set of threshold decisions” in line 1 is suggested to be revised to “wherein the step of applying the set of threshold decisions” for readability. Appropriate correction is required. the term “to regulate the glucose level comprising” in line 2 is suggested to be revised to “to regulate the glucose level comprising” in line 2 is suggested to be revised to “to regulate the glucose level comprises :” for readability. Appropriate correction is required. the term “plurality thresholds” in lines 5, 7, and 9 is suggested to be revised to “the plurality of thresholds” for readability. Appropriate correction is required. 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 s 10 - 18 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 10 recites the term “ A method of detecting the glucose level”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previously-recited glucose level. For the purposes of examination, the term “A method of detecting the glucose level“ is deemed to claim “A method of detecting a glucose level.“ It is noted that within the limitations of the remainder of the claim, there is no particular “glucose level ” that is detected. Claims 11 – 18 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 10. Claim 10 recites the term “applying a set of threshold decisions to detect ability to regulate a predefined glucose level”. It is unclear to what parameter the “set of threshold decisions” is being applied, or if it is to a multitude of parameters. For the purposes of examination, the term “applying a set of threshold decisions to detect ability to regulate a predefined glucose level” is broadly deemed to claim “applying a set of threshold decisions to collected glucose level data to detect an ability to regulate a predefined glucose level”. Claim 11 recites the term “wherein using marking of dirty beats” in line 2. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited marking of dirty beats. For the purposes of examination, the term “wherein using marking of dirty beats” is deemed to claim “wherein the using marking of dirty beats.” Claim 11 recites the term “fourth beats that succeed second beats” in line 6. It is unclear if these second beats are intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited second beats. For the purposes of examination, the term “fourth beats that succeed second beats” is deemed to claim “fourth beats that succeed the second beats.” Claim 11 recites the term “smaller than a predefined threshold”. It is unclear if this predefined threshold is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited predefined threshold. For the purposes of examination, the term “smaller than a predefined threshold” is deemed to claim “smaller than a second predefined threshold”. Claim 12 recites the term “wherein marking of dirty intervals” in line 2. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited marking of dirty intervals. For the purposes of examination, the term “wherein marking of dirty intervals” is deemed to claim “wherein the marking of dirty intervals.” Claim 12 recites the term “marking a start of a dirty interval” in line 3. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited dirty intervals. For the purposes of examination, the term “marking a start of a dirty interval” is deemed to claim “marking a start of the dirty interval” Claim 12 (lines 5 – 9) recites the term “marking the start of the dirty interval in a location after a T wave of the first beat and before a P wave of the second beat …where the first beat is marked as the dirty beat, and the second beat belongs to the normal N class ”. In light of the other term previously-recited in Claim 12, the following is unclear: The claimed mark of the end of the dirty interval and previously-recited start of the dirty interval are both made in a middle of a beat-to-beat interval. From this, it appears that the marks are different beat-to-beat intervals, since otherwise a mark in the middle of the beat-to-beat interval is simultaneously the start and end of the dirty interval. However, as recited as “the first beat” and “the second beat” in lines 3 and 4 , it is then unclear if the assumption is made that the marks are in different beat-to-beat intervals, then the first beat and second beat are on either side of the original beat-to-beat interval and not the second beat-to-beat interval. Further, they were originally such that the first beat “belongs to a normal N class” and the second beat “is marked as a dirty beat”. The second-recited first and second beats are conversely recited as first beat = dirty beat and second beat = normal N class. Looking to Page 11 of Applicant’s specification , with “marking a dirty beat if it does not belong to the N class…and also marks a dirty beat to be the normal beat that succeeds the identified dirty beat”, it is unclear if the intended scope of the claim is to re-identify the previously normal first beat as a dirty beat, since it is beside a dirty beat. Alternatively, if the intended scope is for describing a sliding window of multiple intervals of beat marking along the length of the ECG signal output, with two separate “first” and “second” beats intended to be described. The scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claim 12 recites the term “extracting the clean ECG intervals, wherein the clean ECG intervals are intervals that are not marked as dirty intervals” in lines 12 - 13. It is unclear how many intervals are intended to be extracted, as in line on of the claim “wherein the extracting step is accomplished by using marking dirty intervals”, and the previously-recited extracting step recites “extracting a clean ECG interval”. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, such that is unknown if multiple intervals are intended to be extracted, or just one. Looking to the remainder of the limitations in Claim 12, it appears to otherwise be recited in the singular “interval”. Further, for the term “are intervals”, it is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “beat-to-beat interval”. For the purposes of examination, the term “extracting the clean ECG interval, wherein the clean ECG interval is an interval that is not marked as the dirty interval” is deemed to claim “extracting the clean ECG interval, wherein the clean ECG interval is the beat-to-beat interval that is not marked as the dirty interval . ” Claim 13 recites the term “ of clean ECG intervals” in line 2. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same or different than the “clean ECG interval” previously recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the term “of clean EG intervals” is deemed to claim “of a plurality of the clean ECG interval”. Claim 13 recites the term “calculating a set of HRV parameters” in line 4. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited set of HRV parameters in the “extended set”. For the purposes of examination, the term “calculating a set of HRV parameters” is deemed to claim “calculating the set of HRV parameters of the extended set of HRV parameters.” Claim 13 recites the term “on clean ECG intervals” in line 4. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited clean ECG interval. For the purposes of examination, the term “on clean ECG intervals” is deemed to claim “on a plurality of the ECG interval”. Claim 13 recites the term “calculated on clean ECG intervals” in lines 6 – 7. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “clean ECG intervals”. Based on the interpretation above, the term “calculated on clean ECG intervals” is deemed to claim “calculated on the plurality of the ECG interval.” Claim 13 recites the term “concatenating clean ECG intervals” in line 8 . It is unclear if these are intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “clean ECG intervals”. Based the interpretation above, the term “calculated on clean ECG intervals” is deemed to claim “concatenating the plurality of the ECG interval.” Claim 13 recites the term “calculating the HRV on the long ECG interval” in line 10 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear what HRV is being calculated. For the purposes of examination, the term “calculating the HRV on the long ECG interval” is deemed to claim “calculating a HRV on the long ECG interval”. Claim 13 recites the term “by using individual or concatenated approaches of clean ECG intervals”. There is no particular “individual” (approach) recited in this claim or Claim 10 from which this claim depends. T here is a “concatenated” limitation of “concatenating clean ECG intervals…into a long ECG interval.” With the “or” terminology, it is unclear how to satisfy the metes and bounds of the claim, as the “individual” approach is unclear, and which limitations are associated with the optional “concatenated approach” are also unclear. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claim 14 recites the term “the coverage factor condition” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previously-recited coverage factor. For the purposes of examination, the term “the coverage factor condition” is deemed to claim “a coverage factor condition”. Claim 14 recites the term “including the clean ECG intervals” in line 3. It is unclear if this plurality is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited clean ECG interval. For the purposes of examination, the term “including the clean ECG intervals” is deemed to claim “including the clean ECG interval.” Claim 14 recites the term “within the analyzed ECG measurement” in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previously-recited analyzed ECG measurement. The analyzed ECG-associated component in Claim 10, from which this claim depends, is “ECG annotations”. For the purposes of examination, the term “within the analyzed ECG measurement” is deemed to claim “within the analyzed ECG annotations”. Claim 14 recites the term “specifying a repetitive procedure” in line 7. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited repetitive procedure. For the purposes of examination, the term “specifying a repetitive procedure” is deemed to claim “specifying a second repetitive procedure.” Claim 14 recites the term “calculates a collection of HRVs” in line 7. It is unclear if the is the same or different than the previously-recited collection of HRVs. For the purposes of examination, the term “calculates a collection of HRVs” is deemed to claim “calculates a second collection of HRVs.” Claim 14 recites the term “that includes ECG window sizes” in line 8. It is unclear if the is the same or different than the previously-recited predefined ECG window sizes. For the purposes of examination, the term “that includes ECG window sizes” is deemed to claim “that includes the predefined ECG window sizes.” Claim 14 recites the term “with short and medium term ECG measurements” in lines 8 - 9. It is unclear if the is the same or different than the previously-recited short and medium term ECG measurements. For the purposes of examination, the term “with short and medium term ECG measurements” is deemed to claim “with the short and the medium term ECG measurements” Claim 14 recites the term “calculating a minor coverage factor as the number of ECG parts that contain at least one clear ECG interval within an analyzed ECG part” in lines 11 - 12. It is unclear with constitutes a “part”. Is this a section of the overall ECG that encompasses multiple intervals? Are they beats? I t is unknown if a “part” is intended to be a time segment on an ECG measurement or a label that it put on the annotations such as “Start”. The metes and bounds are unclear. Claim 14 recites the term “specifying a coverage factor condition by identifying a relevant HRV collection if the minor coverage factor of the major coverage factor are more than half of the number of ECG parts” in lines 16 – 19. This limitation in unclear due to the following: It is unclear where the “relevant HRV collection” originates, if it is based on either the “collection of HRVs for predefined ECG window sizes” or the “collection of HRVs for predefined offset” (interpreted as “a second collection of HRVs”), or both. There are two “ifs” for defining how a “relevant HRV collection” is determined. The first “if” is if the minor coverage factor or the major coverage factor include a majority of ECG parts”. It is unclear how a “part” is defined, so determining when more than one part is present is also unclear. Further, there appears to be a word missing between “ECG parts” and “if the minor coverage factor” in lines 17 – 18. It is unknown if this is intended to be an “and” or an “or”. As is, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For the portion of “if the minor coverage factor of the major coverage factor are more than half of the number of ECG parts” is unclear because the metes and bounds of what constitutes a “part” or a plurality of “parts” of ECG. For the term “a majority of ECG parts”, it is unclear if they are intended to be the same or different than the “first ECG part” or the ‘number of ECG parts” previously-recited in the claim. Further, as previously-stated, it is unknown if a “part” is intended to be a time segment on an ECG measurement or a label that it put on the annotations. Claim 14 recites the term “from a collection set” in line 20 . It is unclear if a collection set is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited the “collection of HRVs for predefined ECG window sizes” or the “collection of HRVs for predefined offset” (interpreted as “a second collection of HRVs”), or both, or if it is some other “collection set”. The term “if the HRV differs from an average behavior” in claim FILLIN "Identify the claim." \* MERGEFORMAT 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an average behavior” 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. For the purposes of examination, the term “if the HRV differs from an average behavior” is deemed to claim “if the HRV differs from a calculated HRV average.” Claim 14 recites the term “eliminating a HRV from a collection set if the HRV differs from an average behavior and a range of possible values that are outside a region formed around an average value and a standard deviation of an analyzed HRV”. It is unclear what constitutes “a region formed around an average value”, if it is a time interval on the ECG signal output itself, or if it is a standard deviation of the average HRV. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 14 recites the term “eliminating the HRV from the collection set” in line 23. It is unclear if a collection set is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited the “collection of HRVs for predefined ECG window sizes” or the “collection of HRVs for predefined offset” (interpreted as “a second collection of HRVs”), or both, or if it is some other “collection set”. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 15 recites the term “the step of applying set of threshold decisions for detecting the ability to regulate the glucose level” in lines 1 - 2 . There is no previously-recited step matching that recitation in the claims, as there is no previously-recited “ability to regulate the glucose level.” It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited predefined glucose level. For the purposes of examination, the term “the step of applying set of threshold decisions for detecting the ability to regulate the glucose level” is deemed to claim “the step of applying the set of threshold decisions for detecting the ability to regulate the predefined glucose level.” The term “selecting a specific set of HRV parameters from an aggregation of HRV collections” in line 3 of claim FILLIN "Identify the claim." \* MERGEFORMAT 1 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specific” 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. The metes and bounds of what make a set of HRV parameters be specific versus non-specific is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the term “selecting a specific set of HRV parameters from an aggregation of HRV collections” is deemed to claim “selecting a set of HRV parameters from an aggregation of HRV collections.” Claim 15 recites the term “classifying a bad ability to regulate glucose levels if all HRVs are smaller than a plurality thresholds” in line 4 - 5 . It is unclear from where the HRVs come. If they are HRVs of the “set of HRV parameters”, if they are HRVs from the “aggregation of HRV collections” if they are of all of the HRVs measured over some period of time, or what the metes and bounds of “all HRVs”. It is unknown if “all HRVs” would also apply to HRVs measured from multiple subjects. The metes and bounds of the scope of HRVs is unclear. Claim 15 recites the term “ with a predefined confidence” in line 6. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “predefined confidence”. For the purposes of examination, the term “with a predefined confidence” is deemed to claim “with a second predefined confidence.” Claim 15 recites the term “if all HRVs are higher than the plurality thresholds”. As above, it is unclear which HRVs are “all HRVs”. Further, it is unclear if this is supposed to be the same or different than the previously recited “all HRVs”. The metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be discerned. Claim 15 recites the term “determining a number of results if a number of selected HRVs are smaller than the plurality thresholds and classifying the bad ability to regulate glucose levels if the number of results is smaller than the number of selected HRVs”. This limitation is unclear, as it is unclear if the selected HRVs are intended to be part of the “specific set of HRV parameters”, or if they are intended to be different values. Also, the re is no previously-recited “number of results”. It is unknown if those are supposed to be HRV parameters or something else. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claim 16 recites the term “wherein the step of calculating the equivalent to HbA1C as a value that expresses the two-month average ability to regulate glucose is accomplished by”. There is no previously-recited “step” with these specifications. The previously recited limitation in Claim 10, from which this claim depends, is “calculating an equivalent to HbA1C and plasma glucose levels. For the purposes of examination, the term “wherein the step of calculating the equivalent to HbA1C as a value that expresses the two-month average ability to regulate glucose is accomplished by” is deemed to claim ““wherein the step of calculating the equivalent to HbA1C comprises calculating a value that expresses a two-month average ability to regulate the plasma glucose level, which is accomplished by”. The term “overall ability to regulate glucose level” in lines 5 – 6 of claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “overall” 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. It is unclear if “overall” is intended to indicate over the entire time period, or a qualitatively best or worst ability to regulate glucose level among multiple subjects in the study, or something else. Further, it is unclear if “regulate glucose level” is intended to be the same or different than the previously recited “regulate glucose.” Based on the interpretation above, the term “overall ability to regulate glucose level” is deemed to claim “the two-month average ability to regulate the plasma glucose level . ” Claim 17 recites the term “The method of claim 10 wherein the step of calculating the equivalent to instantaneous plasma glucose level is accomplished by”. There is no previously-recited step of this description . For the purposes of examination, the term “The method of claim 10 wherein the step of calculating the equivalent to instantaneous plasma glucose level is accomplished by” is deemed to claim “The method of claim 10, further comprising calculating an equivalent to an instantaneous plasma glucose level by.” Claim 18 recites the term “wherein the step of forming the reports containing AGP and glucose statistics” in lines 1 - 2 . It is unclear if these are intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited AGP and glucose statistics. For the purposes of examination, the term “wherein the step of forming the reports containing AGP and glucose statistics” is deemed to claim ““wherein the step of forming the reports containing the AGP and the glucose statistics.” The term “selecting a specific time frame” in line 2 of claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specific” 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. The metes and bounds of what makes a time frame specific as opposed to non-specific are unclear. For the purposes of examination, the term “selecting a specific time frame” is deemed to claim ““selecting a time frame.” Claim 18 recites the term “selecting a time frame” in line 4. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited time frame. For the purposes of examination, the term “selecting a time frame” is deemed to claim “selecting the time frame.” Claim 18 recites the term “a time spent below range, a time spent after range”. It is unclear if this is intended to be “above range”. Also the metes and bounds of what the range are unclear, whether the ranges are intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited “normal range”. For the purposes of examination, the term “a time spent below range, a time spent after range” is deemed to claim “a time spent below the normal range, a time spent above the normal range”. Claim 18 recites the term “ambulatory glucose profile, including a glycemic control index, a glucose management index”. It is unclear if the glycemic control index and the glucose management index are intended to be the same or different metrics. Looking to the Applicant’s specification, there is no particular “glycemic control index”. The closest disclosure is at [Page 6, Lines 11 - 14] and indicates that a degree of glycemic control is “glycosylated hemoglobin HbA1C (often referred to as AlC) that is an indicator of the degree of glycemic control (usually referred to as a measure of the ability to control the blood sugar over a period of about 2 or 3 months)”, which appears to be the same as the glucose management index (GMI) at Applicant’s Specification [Page 1, Line 29 – 31] as “GMI, also known as eA1c (Johnson et. al., 2019) is calculated from a formula…”). It is unclear if the glycemic control index and glucose management index are intended to be different parameters. For the purposes of examination, the term “ambulatory glucose profile, including a glycemic control index, a glucose management index” is deemed to claim “ambulatory glucose profile, including a glucose management index.” 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 0 - 18 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. Regarding Claim 1 0 , the claim recites "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" and is therefore a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). Each of claims 1 0 – 18 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 Each of Claims 1 0 – 18 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1 0 – 18 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, Claims 1 0 – 18 recite ( underlined are observations, judgments, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) ( additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2); Claim 10. A method of detecting the glucose level by non-invasive method comprising: analyzing ECG annotations; extracting a clean ECG interval; calculating an extended set of HRV parameters; calculating an aggregation of HRV collections with predefined window sizes and offsets; applying a set of threshold decisions to detect ability to regulate a predefined glucose level; calculating an equivalent to HbA 1C and plasma glucose levels; forming reports containing AGP and achieved glucose statistics. (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) ; These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claim 10, these limitations include: Observation and judgment of ECG annotations; Observation and judgment to evaluate a clean ECG signal; Evaluate an extended set of HRV parameters; Evaluate an aggregation of HRV collections with predefined window sizes and offsets; Observation and judgment to apply a set of threshold decisions to detect ability to regulate a predefined glucose level; Evaluate an equivalent to HbA1C and plasma glucose levels; all of which are grouped as mental processes or mathematical calculations under the 2019 PEG. Similarly, Dependent Claims 11 - 18 include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claim 10 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation , which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) : identify first beats that do not belong to a normal N class and second beats that succeed said first beats; Observation and judgment of first beats that do not belong to a normal N class and second beats that succeed said first beats; identify third beats, wherein said third beats are identified as artifacts or segments with identified noise; Observation and judgment of third beats, wherein said third beats are identified as artifacts or segments with identified noise identify fourth beats that succeed third beats; Observation and judgment of fourth beats that succeed third beats; identifying fifth beats where beat-to-beat interval differs from a previous beat-to-beat interval for a factor larger than a predefined threshold; Observation and judgment of fifth beats where beat-to-beat interval differs from a previous beat-to-beat interval for a factor larger than a predefined threshold; identifying sixth beats that succeed the fifth beats; Observation and judgment of sixth beats that succeed the fifth beats; identifying seventh beats that are not marked as dirty, wherein a longest continuous sequence is smaller than a predefined threshold. Observation and judgment of seventh beats that are not marked as dirty, wherein a longest continuous sequence is smaller than a predefined threshold. mark a start of a dirty interval in a middle of a beat-to-beat interval, wherein a first beat belongs to a normal N class, wherein a second beat is marked as a dirty beat ; Observation and judgment to mark a start of a dirty interval in a middle of a beat-to-beat interval, wherein a first beat belongs to a normal N class, wherein a second beat is marked as a dirty beat; mark the start of the dirty interval in a location after a T wave of a first beat and before a P wave of a second beat ; Observation and judgment to mark the start of the dirty interval in a location after a T wave of a first beat and before a P wave of a second beat; mark an end of the dirty interval in the middle of the beat-to-beat interval, where the first beat is marked as the dirty beat, and the second beat belongs to the normal N class; Observation and judgment to mark an end of the dirty interval in the middle of the beat-to-beat interval, where the first beat is marked as the dirty beat, and the second beat belongs to the normal N class; mark the end of the dirty interval in the location after the T wave of the first beat and before the P wave of the second beat; Observation and judgment to mark the end of the dirty interval in the location after the T wave of the first beat and before the P wave of the second beat; extract the clean ECG intervals, wherein the clean ECG intervals are intervals that are not marked as dirty intervals. Observation and judgment to evaluate the clean ECG intervals, wherein the clean ECG intervals are intervals that are not marked as dirty intervals. calculate the extended set of HRV parameters using individual or concatenated approaches of clean ECG intervals evaluate the extended set of HRV parameters using individual or concatenated approaches of clean ECG intervals calculate a set of HRV parameters on the clean ECG intervals within an analyzed ECG measurement window; evaluate a set of HRV parameters on the clean ECG intervals within an analyzed ECG measurement window; calculate statistical operations on the set of HRV parameters calculated on clean ECG intervals; evaluate statistical operations on the set of HRV parameters calculated on clean ECG intervals; concatenate clean ECG intervals from the analyzed ECG measurement window into a long ECG interval; Observation and judgment to concatenate clean ECG intervals from the analyzed ECG measurement window into a long ECG interval; calculate the HRV on the long ECG interval. evaluate the HRV on the long ECG interval. calculate the aggregation of HRV collections using a sliding window approach satisfying the coverage factor condition of including the clean ECG intervals within the analyzed ECG measurement, evaluate the aggregation of HRV collections using a sliding window approach satisfying the coverage factor condition of including the clean ECG intervals within the analyzed ECG measurement, specify a repetitive procedure that calculates a collection of HRVs for predefined ECG window sizes with short, medium, long and extra-long term ECG measurements; Observation and judgment to specify a repetitive procedure that evaluates a collection of HRVs for predefined ECG window sizes with short, medium, long and extra-long term ECG measurements; specify a repetitive procedure that calculates a collection of HRVs for predefined offset in respect to an analyzed time moment that includes ECG window sizes with short and medium term ECG measurements corresponding to a predefined first duration and a predefined second duration; Observation and judgment to specify a repetitive procedure that evaluates a collection of HRVs for predefined offset in respect to an analyzed time moment that includes ECG window sizes with short and medium term ECG measurements corresponding to a predefined first duration and a predefined second duration; calculate a minor coverage factor as a number of ECG parts that contain at least one clean ECG interval within an analyzed ECG part; evaluate a minor coverage factor as a number of ECG parts that contain at least one clean ECG interval within an analyzed ECG part; calculate a major coverage factor as the number of ECG parts where a time duration of clean ECG intervals within a first ECG part cover more than half of a time duration of the analyzed ECG part; evaluate a major coverage factor as the number of ECG parts where a time duration of clean ECG intervals within a first ECG part cover more than half of a time duration of the analyzed ECG part; specify a coverage factor condition by identifying a relevant HRV collection if a minor coverage factor or the major coverage factor include a majority of ECG parts if a minor coverage factor or the major coverage factor are more than a half of the number of ECG parts; Observation and judgment to specify a coverage factor condition by identifying a relevant HRV collection if a minor coverage factor or the major coverage factor include a majority of ECG parts if a minor coverage factor or the major coverage factor are more than a half of the number of ECG parts; eliminate a HRV from a collection set if the HRV differs from an average behavior and a range of possible values that are outside a region formed around an average value and a standard deviation of an analyzed HRV; Observation and judgment to eliminate a HRV from a collection set if the HRV differs from an average behavior and a range of possible values that are outside a region formed around an average value and a standard deviation of an analyzed HRV; eliminate the HRV from the collection set by applying an IQR, Z score. Observation and judgment to eliminate the HRV from the collection set by applying an IQR, Z score. Applying a set of threshold decisions for detecting the ability to regulate the glucose level, wherein the personal device is configured to Observation and judgment to apply a set of threshold decisions for detecting the ability to regulate the glucose level, wherein the personal device is configured to select a specific set of HRV parameters from an aggregation of HRV collections; Observation and judgment to select a specific set of HRV parameters from an aggregation of HRV collections; classify a bad ability to regulate glucose levels with a predefined confidence if all HRVs are smaller than a plurality of thresholds; Observation and judgment to classify a bad ability to regulate glucose levels with a predefined confidence if all HRVs are smaller than a plurality of thresholds; classify a good ability to regulate glucose levels with a predefined confidence if all HRVs are higher than the plurality of thresholds; Observation and judgment to classify a good ability to regulate glucose levels with a predefined confidence if all HRVs are higher than the plurality of thresholds; determine a number of results if a number of selected HRVs are smaller than the plurality of thresholds and classifying the bad ability to regulate glucose levels if the number of results is smaller than the number of selected HRVs. Observation and judgment to evaluate a number of results if a number of selected HRVs are smaller than the plurality of thresholds and classifying the bad ability to regulate glucose levels if the number of results is smaller than the number of selected HRVs. calculate the equivalent to HbA1C as a value that expresses the two-month average ability to regulate glucose is accomplished by calculating a regression function or any other mathematical, computer or data science functional method of selected dominant HRVs evaluate the equivalent to HbA1C as a value that expresses the two-month average ability to regulate glucose is accomplished by calculating a regression function or any other mathematical, computer or data science functional method of selected dominant HRVs select a set of dominant long and extra-long term HRVs that impact overall ability to regulate glucose level; Observation and judgment to select a set of dominant long and extra-long term HRVs that impact overall ability to regulate glucose level; specify a processing procedure based on applying weighting factors to selected HRVs . Observation and judgment to specify a processing procedure based on applying weighting factors to selected HRVs. calculate the equivalent to an instantaneous plasma glucose level by calculating a regression function or any other mathematical, computer or data science functional method of selected dominant HRVs, evaluate the equivalent to an instantaneous plasma glucose level by calculating a regression function or any other mathematical, computer or data science functional method of selected dominant HRVs, select an aggregation of dominant short and medium term HRV collections with different window sizes and different offsets to the analyzed time moment that impact the instantaneous plasma glucose level; Observation and judgment to select an aggregation of dominant short and medium term HRV collections with different window sizes and different offsets to the analyzed time moment that impact the instantaneous plasma glucose level ; specify a processing procedure based on applying weighting factors to selected HRVs. Observation and judgment to specify a processing procedure based on applying weighting factors to selected HRVs. form the reports containing AGP and glucose statistics by selecting a specific time frame and calculating methods to calculate average glucose behavior and variability indexes and coefficients Observation and judgment to form the reports containing AGP and glucose statistics by selecting a specific time frame and calculating methods to evaluate average glucose behavior and variability indexes and coefficients select a time frame to analyze instantaneous plasma glucose levels; Observation and judgment to select a time frame to analyze instantaneous plasma glucose levels; calculate the average glucose behavior; evaluate the average glucose behavior; calculate an average behavior of glucose statistics and an ambulatory glucose profile, including a glycemic control index, a glucose management index, a glucose variability, a coefficient of glucose variation (CV), a time spent in normal range, a time spent below range, a time spent after range, and a mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). evaluate an average behavior of glucose statistics and an ambulatory glucose profile, including a glycemic control index, a glucose management index, a glucose variability, a coefficient of glucose variation (CV), a time spent in normal range, a time spent below range, a time spent after range, and a mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). all of which are grouped as mental processes or mathematical calculations under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2 The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claim 10 (and their respective Dependent Claims ) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in Independent Claim 10 ), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional pre-solution activity elements of: form reports containing AGP and achieved glucose statistics. These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant