DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-28, 30, 31, 33-37, 39, and 40 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Saidara et al. (US 2005/0038332).
As to claims 21, 30, and 39, Saidara teaches a method, comprising: identifying, by at least one processor, one or more glucose threshold levels, wherein each of the one or more glucose threshold levels is associated with a different predetermined alert of one or more predetermined alerts (Fig. 4A – multiple thresholds; [0120] - each with a different alarm); in response to determining, by the at least one processor, a commencement of a predetermined time period during which a patient is expected to have a decreased level of responsiveness ([0146] – manual or automatic activation of night mode): adjusting, by the at least one processor, the one or more glucose threshold levels and/or one or more characteristics of at least one of the one or more predetermined alerts associated with the one or more glucose threshold levels ([0150] – setting different alarm thresholds, [0149] – different tone or audibility); identifying, by the at least one processor, a current glucose level of the patient; and generating, by the at least one processor, an alert based on the one or more predetermined alerts in response to a comparison of the current glucose level of the patient to the adjusted one or more glucose threshold levels ([0148]). Saidara teaches programs, processors, and memory to carry out the method ([0067-0068])
As to claims 22, 31, and 40, Saidara teaches the one or more characteristics of the at least one of the one or more predetermined alerts include a volume of the predetermined alert, a sound generated by the predetermined alert, a frequency of the predetermined alert, an implementation of a vibrating alert, an implementation of a flashing screen, and an option to contact medical personnel ([0149]).
As to claims 24 and 33, Saidara teaches enabling at least one of the one or more predetermined alerts in response to the commencement of the predetermined time period ([0150] – a higher low blood glucose alarm threshold resulting in a different alert).
As to claims 25 and 34, Saidara teaches the predetermined time period comprises a user- designated night mode time period ([0146]).
As to claims 26 and 35, Saidara teaches receiving, by the at least one processor, one or more selections of the one or more predetermined alerts in association with the user- designated night mode time period ([0115], [0125]).
As to claims 27 and 36, Saidara teaches adjusting the one or more glucose threshold levels and/or the one or more characteristics comprises adjusting a glucose threshold level associated with a low glucose level alert; and a glucose threshold level associated with a high glucose level alert is not adjusted in response to determining the commencement of the predetermined time period ([0150] – while a higher low blood glucose alarm is mentioned, no such change for the high blood glucose alarm is mentioned).
As to claims 28 and 37, Saidara teaches adjusting the one or more glucose threshold levels and/or the one or more characteristics comprises at least one of increasing a low glucose threshold level or decreasing a high glucose threshold level ([0150]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saidara et al. (US 2005/0038332) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2011/0201911).
As to claims 23 and 32, Saidara does not necessarily teach deactivating at least one of the one or more predetermined alerts in response to the commencement of the predetermined time period, although it does teach that the user can set a “blackout” period ([0115]). However, Johnson, in addition to teaching that the length, volume, or type of alert may be changed depending on the selected mode ([0087]), teaches additional modes such as “do not disturb” ([0084]), which would deactivate any alerts during the predetermined time period. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Saidara with Johnson to enable the selection of other types of modes for greater selection and control over how alerts are presented to the user for ease of use.
Claim(s) 29 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saidara et al. (US 2005/0038332) in view of Keller et al. (US 2016/0089994).
As to claims 29 and 38, Saidara does not teach determining, before the commencement of the predetermined time period, whether a battery level of a computing device comprising the at least one processor is sufficient to provide power through an end of the predetermined time period; and based on determining that the battery level is not sufficient to provide power through the end of the predetermined time period, generating, before the commencement of the predetermined time period, a notification. Keller teaches a battery management system in which a user, prior to going to sleep, is alerted if there is insufficient battery power to last the duration of the sleep cycle. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Saidara with Keller to alert the user of a potential need to recharge the device before they go into a period of reduced responsiveness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN JANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-3:30 EST).
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
CHRISTIAN JANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTIAN JANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791 4/15/26
Prosecution Insights