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 information disclosure statement of 06/08/2026 has not been considered.
In view of the amendments, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
In view of the amendments, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 06/08/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are amended; claims 5-7, 10, and 16 remain unchanged; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 10/19/2015
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the previously-used Crowder et al. reference. These arguments are deemed moot in view of rejections no longer reciting this reference.
Furthermore Applicant argues with respect to claim 10. This rejection has been updated in view of the amendments to the rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites that there is prevention of leaving a target glucose range, though the specification does not support this function leading Examiner to question whether Applicant had possession over the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2009/0164239 to Hayter et al. in view of U.S. 2013/0338630 to Agrawal et al.
As per claim 1, Hayter et al. teaches a system, comprising:
--one or more processors; (see: 210 of FIG. 2 where there is a processor) and
--one or more processor-readable media storing instructions (see: paragraph [0048] where there is a memory with instructions) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of:
--causing display of a snapshot graphical user interface display, (see: paragraph [0080] where there is display of data on a display) wherein:
--the snapshot graphical user interface display comprises a graph overlay region, (see: FIG. 23 where there is display of a graph overlay region) and
--the event detection region comprises a pattern guidance sub-region for at least one event pattern of the plurality of event patterns that includes an indication of a recommended therapeutic remedial action to be implemented by a medical device (see: paragraph [0175] where there is a pattern guidance sub-region which is displaying an indication of a recommendation to modify a therapy profile via displaying said recommendation) prior to a subsequent reoccurrence of the time period associated with the at least one event pattern to mitigate occurrence of the at least one event pattern during the subsequent reoccurrence of the time period, (see: paragraphs [0182] – [0183] where the profile modification is done so prior to any follow up occurrence of a time period associated with a time-of-day information) wherein the recommended therapeutic remedial action comprises a change in an amount of insulin to deliver and/or a change in a time at which to deliver insulin; (see: paragraphs [0117] and [0175] where the recommended therapeutic remedial action of the modification of a therapy profile is to change insulin delivery to the patient) and
--causing automated reprogramming of the medical device for implementation of the recommended therapeutic remedial action prior to the subsequent reoccurrence of the time period associated with the at least one event pattern such that the medical device delivers insulin according to the change in the amount of insulin and/or the change in the time at which to deliver the insulin (see: paragraph [0148] where there is causing of automated reprogramming of an insulin delivery pump to settings/parameters of the modified profile. Also see: paragraphs [0182] – [0183] where the profile modification is done so prior to any follow up occurrence of a time period associated with a time-of-day information. The amount of glucose here can be a modification).
Hayter et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --identifying a plurality of event patterns within a plurality of monitoring periods based on measurement values of a physiological condition, each event pattern associated with a time period; and
2) --wherein: the snapshot graphical user interface display comprises a graph overlay region and an event detection region.
Agrawal et al. teaches:
1) --identifying a plurality of event patterns within a plurality of monitoring periods based on measurement values of a physiological condition, each event pattern associated with a time period; (see: paragraph [0200] and FIGS. 7A and 7B where there is identification of events within various periods of time. These events are based on a physiological condition related to glucose) and
2) --wherein: the snapshot graphical user interface display comprises a graph overlay region and an event detection region (see: FIGS. 7A and 7B where there is a graph overlay region of the 24-Hour Glucose Overlay and an event detection region of the displayed patterns/events).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) identify a plurality of event patterns within a plurality of monitoring periods based on measurement values of a physiological condition, each event pattern associated with a time period and 2) wherein: the snapshot graphical user interface display comprises a graph overlay region and an event detection region as taught by Agrawal et al. in the system as taught by Hayter et al. with the motivation(s) of providing expanded and improved data analysis capabilities (see: paragraph [0077] of Agrawal et al.).
As per claim 2, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Hayter et al. further teaches wherein the automated reprogramming is responsive to user input that comprises selection of the indication of the recommended therapeutic remedial action (see: paragraphs [0183] and [0185] where there is user selection/input to adjust the parameters available for modification (recommended therapeutical remedial action)).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Hayter et al. further teaches wherein the automated reprogramming of the medical device prevents the glucose level from leaving the target glucose range during the subsequent reoccurrence of the time period (see: paragraph [0111] where there is a target profile which is used to place the glucose readings into a target range. Also see: paragraph [0148] where there is automated reprogramming of the device. The automated reprogramming of the device to a target profile would prevent the glucose level from being outside of the profile’s range).
Agrawal further teaches wherein the at least one event pattern indicates that a glucose level is outside a target glucose range during the time period associated with the at least one event pattern (see: paragraph [0117] where the glucose readings outside of a particular pattern/range is being shown. The event patterns here indicate these readings).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Agrawal et al. further teaches wherein the at least one event pattern is associated with a time of day, (see: paragraph [0008] where there is a time of day associated with the event patterns) and wherein the subsequent reoccurrence of the time period corresponds to a next occurrence of the time of day (see: paragraph [0147] where there is a next occurrence and the occurrences coincide with time periods. Also see: paragraphs [0182] – [0183] of Hayter et al. where the subsequent time period is the next time of day for that time period).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Agrawal further teaches wherein the medical device comprises an infusion device that is operable to deliver fluid to a body of a patient associated with the medical device (see: paragraph [0077] where device communication layer 24 is responsible for interfacing with at least one, and, in further embodiments, to a plurality of different types of subject support devices 12, such as, for example, blood glucose meters, glucose sensors/monitors, or an infusion pump. Supports device 12 is an infusion pump (infusion device) operable to deliver fluid to a body of a patient based on measurement values for a physiological condition in the body of the patient for a sensing arrangement, the fluid influencing the physiological condition).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Agrawal further teaches a database to store the measurement values, (see: 29 of FIG. 1 and paragraph [0076] where there is a database layer to store measurement data 12) wherein the instructions further cause performance of obtaining the measurement values from the database and identifying the plurality of event patterns based on the obtained measurement values (see: computing device 100 from FIG. 1 where it is connected to a database layer that stores the measurement values obtained from devices 12. Also see: paragraphs [0083] and [0183] where computing device 100 may perform various, described decision support features. Also see: paragraph [0151] where database information is used to recognize patterns. There are instructions here which cause obtaining measurement values from the database and identifying patterns based on these obtained values).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 17, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Agrawal further teaches wherein the instructions cause display of the snapshot graphical user interface display to a client computing device communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, (see: paragraph [0184] where the electronic report snapshot may be transmitted to a destination device for presentation. The destination device is the client computing device) the client computing device displaying the snapshot graphical user interface display on a display device associated therewith (see: paragraph [0184] where the destination device (client) presents the electronic report snapshot).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Agrawal further teaches wherein the graph overlay region comprises a graphical representation of one or more measurement values are obtained from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device (see: paragraph [0013] where there are blood glucose readings from a continuous glucose monitor sensor).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, claim 19 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner. Hayter et al. further teaches one or more processor-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors (see: paragraph [0048] where there is a processor device and memory with instructions).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2009/0164239 to Hayter et al. in view of U.S. 2013/0338630 to Agrawal as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2013/0035575 to Mayou et al.
As per claim 6, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the instructions further cause performance of prioritizing the plurality of event patterns to generate a prioritized list.
Mayou et al. teaches:
--wherein the instructions further cause performance of prioritizing the plurality of event patterns to generate a prioritized list (see: paragraphs [0214] and [0217] where one or more of the following filters may be applied for selecting the final patterns or reducing the number of patterns prior to selecting final patterns from candidate sets: 3. Prioritized by type of events: Another filter may assign a weight or score to each event based on the severity of the event. Prioritization of event patterns is occurring based on the filtering criteria of type of events in order to generate a prioritized list).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the instructions further cause performance of prioritizing the plurality of event patterns to generate a prioritized list as taught by Mayou et al. in the system as taught by Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of preventing excessive alerts to the user, including alerts in response to measurements that do not pose a risk to the user (see: paragraph [0007] of Mayou et al.).
As per claim 7, Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 6, see discussion of claim 6. Agrawal further teaches wherein the instructions further cause filtering of the list of the plurality of event patterns based on one or more filtering criteria (see: paragraph [0119] where patterns may be in themselves further sorted and filtered by the types of readings forming the pattern. The remaining event patterns (the patterns) form a list after the event patterns are sorted through and filtered).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Mayou et al. teaches a list as a prioritized list (see: paragraphs [0213] – [0217] where the number of event patterns are may be filtered down for selecting the final patterns via various types of prioritization schemes. The remaining event patterns form a list of prioritized event patterns).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 7, see discussion of claim 7. Agrawal further teaches wherein the pattern guidance sub-region presents the at least one event pattern of the plurality of event patterns based at least in part on the filtered list (see: paragraphs [0171] and [0262] where regardless of which event occurrences, if any, are detected, the process 1200 may continue to task 1224 for purposes of generating an appropriate output that conveys the recommendations. The output may be a report suitable for display, printing, and/or transmission to a destination device, wherein the recommendations included on the report are intended to address the detected event occurrences. A display is being generated which comprises a respective pattern guidance display (recommendations) for each respective event pattern of the filtered list (the detected event occurrences). The graphical representation of the recommended therapeutic modification is the output of the recommendation. Also see: paragraph [0216] where the modal day can be divided into eight intervals of three hours each. Each interval is assigned a weight or score. Based on the assigned weight or score, the candidate sets may be prioritized by the weight or score of the events in the pattern, sum as sum, an average, a median or the like of the weights or scores in a candidate set. The highest priority set in then selected, and the events included in the selected set are deleted from the remaining sets. Thus, the highest priority event pattern is being retained within each respective monitoring period).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Mayou et al. teaches a filtered list as a filtered prioritized list (see: paragraphs [0213] – [0217] where the number of event patterns are may be filtered down for selecting the final patterns via various types of prioritization schemes. The remaining event patterns form a list of prioritized event patterns).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 7, see discussion of claim 7. Agrawal further teaches wherein the recommended therapeutic remedial action is one of one or more recommended therapeutic remedial actions, (see: FIG. 16B and paragraph [0229] where recommendations appear in the region 1148. Accordingly, the recommendation shown in the region 1148 of FIG. 16B is a recommendation selected out of various recommendations otherwise the invention would output the same recommendation regardless of the events detected) and wherein the pattern guidance sub-region for a highest priority event pattern of the filtered prioritized list includes a pattern analysis region identifying one or more potential causes of the highest priority event pattern above a therapy analysis region identifying the one or more recommended therapeutic remedial actions pertaining to the highest priority event pattern (see: “Observations” 1148 of FIG. 16B where the observations window is being considered as the pattern guidance display and that the top region is a pattern analysis region while the bottom region is a therapy analysis region. Also see: paragraph [0268] where the observations window highlights important issues. Thus, information for the highest priority event is being shown).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2009/0164239 to Hayter et al. in view of U.S. 2013/0338630 to Agrawal further in view of U.S. 2013/0035575 to Mayou et al. as applied to claim 9, and further in view of U.S. 2008/0059229 to Yamada.
As per claim 10, Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 9, see discussion of claim 9. Hayter et al. teaches an information as a respective recommended therapeutic remedial action of the one or more recommended therapeutic remedial actions (see: paragraph [0053] where there are basal delivery profiles).
The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the therapy analysis region comprises a table including a plurality of columns, and wherein each column of the plurality of columns corresponds to an information.
Yamada teaches:
--wherein the therapy analysis region comprises a table including a plurality of columns, (see: FIG. 4 where there are different medicaments for a case. The therapy analysis region here (the entire table) includes a plurality of columns) and wherein each column of the plurality of columns corresponds to an information (see: FIG. 4 and paragraph [0063] where there are different columns and two columns correspond to information (medicaments 1 and 2)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the therapy analysis region comprises a table including a plurality of columns, and wherein each column of the plurality of columns corresponds to an information as taught by Yamada for the therapy analysis region and therapeutic remedial actions as disclosed by Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. teaches remedial actions in the therapy analysis region and teaching wherein the remedial actions are displayed in individual columns would only be a superficial change and thusly, a non-functional change. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 11, Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., Mayou et al., and Yamada in combination teaches the system of claim 10, see discussion of claim 10. Agrawal further teaches further comprising a database to store therapeutic modification logic rules associated with the highest priority event pattern, wherein the one or more processors are communicatively coupled to the database to obtain the therapeutic modification logic rules from the database, (see: 28 of FIG. 1 and paragraph [0080] where the database layer 28 may include a centralized database repository that is responsible for warehousing and archiving stored data in an organized format for later access, and retrieval. Also see: paragraph [0099] where the treatment recommendations are stored and accessed by the system 16. A database here is storing therapeutic modification logic rules. Additionally, the computing device (computing device 100 from FIG. 1) is coupled to the database. Also see: paragraph [0262] where regardless of which event occurrences, if any, are detected, the process 1200 may continue to task 1224 for purposes of generating an appropriate output that conveys the recommendations. The output may be a report suitable for display, printing, and/or transmission to a destination device, wherein the recommendations included on the report are intended to address the detected event occurrences. Also see: paragraph [0091] where treatment may be developed or modified. The computing device here can identify the course of treatment recommendation (recommended therapeutic modification) that is output based on the detected event occurrence information and corrective measures that are needed to be taken (modification logic) to modify the treatment) identify a current therapy for a patient, and identify the one or more recommended therapeutic remedial actions based at least in part on the therapeutic modification logic rules and the current therapy, (see: 28 and 100 of FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0080], [0091], [0099], and [0262]. The computing device here identifies a current therapy because it can identify a treatment that can be modified. Thus, it can identify a current treatment needing to be modified and modify it based on its own modification rules (logic)) and wherein the recommended therapeutic remedial action of the pattern guidance sub-region is one of the identified one or more recommended therapeutic remedial actions (see: FIGS. 15 and 16 and paragraph [0229] where recommendations appear in the region 1148. Also see: paragraph [0262] where the recommendations may be included in the report of FIG. 15, thus the recommendations in the observation region 1148 of the report is the identified recommendation).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2009/0164239 to Hayter et al. in view of U.S. 2013/0338630 to Agrawal further in view of U.S. 2013/0035575 to Mayou et al.as applied to claim 9, and further in view of U.S. 2014/0046940 to Thomson et al.
As per claim 12, Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 9, see discussion of claim 9. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the therapy analysis region is hidden in response to expansion of the respective pattern guidance sub-region for another event pattern of the filtered prioritized list.
Thomson et al. teaches:
--wherein the therapy analysis region is hidden in response to expansion of the respective pattern guidance sub-region for another event pattern of the filtered prioritized list (see: paragraph [0053] and FIG. 5 where screen 542 of 1-3 expands into 551 of 1-4 via selection of 550 of 1-3.The events here are expandable and collapsible and cover the regions of other events when expanded. The filtered prioritized list was taught in the claim 1 rejection).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the therapy analysis region is hidden in response to expansion of the respective pattern guidance sub-region for another event pattern of the filtered prioritized list as taught by Thomson et al. for the respective pattern guidance display as disclosed by Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. already teach a respective pattern guidance sub-region so substituting that display with a display that is both expandable and collapsible would only be a superficial change and thusly would not change the underlying functionality of the combination of Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mayou et al. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2009/0164239 to Hayter et al. in view of U.S. 2013/0338630 to Agrawal as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2014/0046940 to Thomson et al.
As per claim 13, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the pattern guidance sub-region for each event pattern of the at least one event pattern of the plurality of event patterns is expandable or collapsible.
Thomson et al. teaches:
--wherein the pattern guidance sub-region for each event pattern of the at least one event pattern of the plurality of event patterns is expandable or collapsible (see: paragraph [0053] and FIG. 5 where screen 542 of 1-3 expands into 551 of 1-4 via selection of 550 of 1-3.The events here are expandable and collapsible. The filtered prioritized list was taught in the claim 1 rejection).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the pattern guidance sub-region for each event pattern of the at least one event pattern of the plurality of event patterns is expandable or collapsible as taught by Thomson et al. for the respective pattern guidance display as disclosed by Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. already teaches a respective pattern guidance sub-region so substituting that display with a display that is both expandable and collapsible would only be a superficial change and thusly would not change the underlying functionality of the combination of Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2009/0164239 to Hayter et al. in view of U.S. 2013/0338630 to Agrawal as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,192,536 to Mackin et al.
As per claim 14, Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the graph overlay region includes a marker associated with each event pattern of the at least one event pattern of the plurality of event patterns, wherein each marker encompasses a period of time corresponding to the event pattern associated therewith.
Mackin et al. teaches:
--wherein the graph overlay region includes a marker associated with each event pattern of the at least one event pattern of the plurality of event patterns, (see: FIG. 2 and column 3, lines 34-40 where there are markers in a graphical overlay region associated with each medical event) wherein each marker encompasses a period of time corresponding to the event pattern associated therewith (see: FIG. 2 and column 3, lines 34-40 where there are indications of each respective event and each indication encompasses a period of time).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the graph overlay region includes a marker associated with each event pattern of the at least one event pattern of the plurality of event patterns, wherein each marker encompasses a period of time corresponding to the event pattern associated therewith as taught by Mackin et al. for the graphical overlay region and event patterns as disclosed by Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. teaches a display of graphical overlay and event patterns and substituting wherein the graph visually displays the events on the graph as opposed to near the graph would not change the functionality of the combination of Hayter et al. and Agrawal et al. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 15, Hayter et al., Agrawal et al., and Mackin et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 14, see discussion of claim 14. Mackin et al. further teaches wherein the pattern guidance sub-region for each event pattern includes a respective header region that is color-coordinated with the marker associated with the respective event pattern (see FIG. 2 and column 3, lines 34-40 where the touch pads and the events on the graph may be colored the same to indicate the event time).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 14, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights