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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 11-13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “first electromagnetic waves” in lines 6 and 9. These recitations should read “first set of electromagnetic waves”. Similar recitations are found in lines 14 and 18 of claim 11 and lines 4 and 6 of claim 16.
Claim 1 recites “first scattering waves” in lines 7 and 10. These recitations should read “first set of scattering waves”. Similar recitations are found in lines 16 and 19 of claim 11 and lines 5 and 6-7 of claim 16.
Claim 3 recites “second scattering waves” in lines 2 and 4. These recitations should read “second set of scattering waves”. Similar recitations are found in lines 7 and 9 of claim 12 and lines 3 and 5 of claim 17.
Claim 4 recites “second electromagnetic waves” in lines 4 and 8. These recitations should read “second set of electromagnetic waves”. Similar recitations are found in lines 4 and 8 of claim 13 and lines 3 and 7 of claim 18.
Claim 4 recites “third scattering waves” in lines 6 and 9. These recitations should read “third set of scattering waves”. Similar recitations are found in lines 6 and 9 of claim 13 and lines 5 and 8 of claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“device” first recited in claim 1. “device” does not have sufficient structure to perform the following functional limitations:
“estimate a permittivity based on the first electromagnetic waves and the first scattering waves”, recited in claim 1.
“estimate… a blood glucose concentration”, recited in claim 1.
“perform a calibration” recited in claim 6.
“estimate the permittivity of the user” recited in claim 7.
“obtain one or more reference values” recited in claim 7.
“produce a model” recited in claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure is identified as a processor and a memory, as described in par. [0041].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-8, 13-14, and 19-20 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.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 19, claim 6 recites “perform a calibration of the device during a first time period to enable the device to estimate the blood glucose concentration of the user during the second time period”. It is unclear how the calibration of the device enables the estimation of blood glucose in the second time period. It is understood that a calibration may adjust the measurements such that measurements and estimations are more accurate, however it is unclear how this step would enable the estimation of the blood glucose concentration. It is further unclear by this recitation, if the device was previously disabled to estimate the blood glucose concentration. Similar recitations in claims 14 and 19 render the claims indefinite. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as “a calibration of the device during a first time period prior to the estimation of blood glucose concentration of the user during the second time period”.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the first time period comprises a plurality of permittivity measurements and corresponding reference values obtained during a plurality of measurement intervals”. It is unclear how a time period can comprise measurements and corresponding reference values. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “wherein the calibration during the first time period comprises a plurality of permittivity measurements and corresponding reference values obtained during a plurality of measurement intervals.”
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “wherein the device further performs operations comprising: transmit, by the second module…receive, by the second module…”. The recited device is a computing device, therefore it is unclear how the device is transmitting and receiving electromagnetic waves. A computing device can be capable of transmitting or receiving data indicative of electromagnetic waves and scattering waves. Therefore, it is unclear how the device is performing these operations. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “wherein the computing device further causes the second module to perform operations comprising:…”.
Further regarding claim 14, the claim recites “a second time period” in line 4. It is unclear whether this second time period is the same second time period recited in line 20 of claim 11, or another second time period. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “the second time period”.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2017/0164878 by Connor, hereinafter “Connor”, as evidenced by Evaluating RF and Microwave Exposure by OSHA (2021).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 10, Fig. 56 of Connor teaches a device comprising: a body defining an annular-shaped opening (arcuate band 5601 is configured to span the circumference of body part, such as the finger), the body comprising: a first module ([0709]: a first microwave sensor set) comprising: a receiver/transmitter (microwave energy receiver 5608 and microwave energy emitter 5606); and wherein the device performs one or more operations comprising: transmit, by the first module, a first electromagnetic waves into a digit of a user ([0708]: “transmission of microwave energy from microwave energy emitters”. This would be transmitted into the digit as the band is configured to span a finger.), receive, by the first module, a first scattering waves reflected back to the first module ([0708]: some electromagnetic waves will be reflected to microwave energy receivers), and estimate, during a second time period, a blood glucose concentration ([0708]: “body glucose level of the person wearing this device can be estimated by analyzing the transmission of microwave energy from microwave energy emitters to microwave energy receivers (and/or reflected back to energy emitters) in the plurality of sets”) and providing the blood glucose concentration as output (the data processor 5604 measures the blood glucose level and this data is transmitted (i.e., output) by the data transmitter 5605); wherein the device is configured to be worn by the user such that the body is positioned around the digit (arcuate band 5601 is configured to span the circumference of body part, such as the finger).
Fig. 56 of Connor does not teach the device performing the operations of estimating a permittivity based on the first electromagnetic waves and the first scattering waves, or estimating the blood glucose concentration based on the estimated permittivity.
Par. [0167-0168] of Connor teaches examples of using microwave energy emitters and receivers to estimate blood glucose concentrations. Permittivity can be measured based on emitting and receiving microwave-level electromagnetic energy and the resonant frequency of a resonator. In an example, body glucose levels in nearby body fluid and/or tissue can be estimated by measuring the permittivity of that body fluid and/or tissue.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device of Fig. 56 of Connor to include estimating a permittivity based on the first electromagnetic waves and the first scattering waves, (the measuring is considered estimating because the permittivity is derived from the resonant frequency of the resonator) and estimating the blood glucose concentration based on the estimated permittivity. This combination comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Modified Connor does not teach the device estimating the blood glucose concentrations based on a reference dataset or performing a calibration of the device during a first time period prior to the device estimating the blood glucose concentration during the second time period.
Fig. 62 of Connor teaches an embodiment comprising a fluid-based glucose sensor for measuring body glucose level. Measurements from the fluid-based glucose sensor (i.e., reference dataset) can be used to calibrate measurement of body glucose level with the energy emitter and energy receiver ([0724]). Following the calibration (i.e., the calibration comprises first time period), the estimation of blood glucose concentration (i.e., second time period) are performed and are based on the calibration glucose measurements (i.e., reference dataset).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system taught by modified Connor to include a fluid-based glucose sensor such that estimating the blood glucose concentration is based on a reference dataset, and such that the device performs a calibration of the device during a first time period prior to the device estimating the blood glucose concentration during the second time period. Performing a calibration is a common technique to correlate estimations (those measured by the first module) to standard measurements (those measured by the fluid-based glucose sensor). This combination merely comprises applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.D.
It is noted that the device taught by modified Connor emits and receives microwave energy. OSHA teaches that microwaves (frequencies between 33MHz and 3GHz) are a subset of RF frequencies (between 3kHz and 300GHz). Therefore the device taught by modified Connor reads on the limitations of claim 10, wherein a frequency range of the electromagnetic waves comprises an RF frequency range.
Regarding claim 2, modified Connor teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the body further comprises: a second module (Fig. 56, [0709]: a second microwave sensor set comprising emitter 5612 and receiver 5614) comprising: a receiver (Fig. 56; receiver 5614), wherein the second module is opposite the body from the first module (The set comprising 5612 and 5614 is opposite the first module (set comprising 5606 and 5608)).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Connor teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the second module further comprises: a transmitter (Fig. 56; microwave energy emitter 5612), wherein the device further performs operations comprising: receive, by the second module, a second scattering waves passing through the digit from the first module, transmit, by the second module, a second electromagnetic waves into a digit of a user ([0708] energy emitters are configured to emit microwave energy), and receive, by the second module, a third scattering waves reflected back to the second module ([0708]: microwave energy receivers are configured to receive microwave energy); wherein estimating the permittivity is further based on the second scattering waves received by the second module and wherein the estimating the permittivity is further based on the second electromagnetic waves and the third scattering waves ([0708]: “In this example, the body glucose level of the person wearing this device can be estimated by analyzing the transmission of microwave energy from microwave energy emitters to microwave energy receivers (and/or reflected back to energy emitters) in the plurality of sets.” Therefore estimating the permittivity is based on the scattered waves passing through the digit from each module to the other modules, as well as the scattered waves reflected back to each respective module. This would include the second scattering waves passing through the digit from the first module to the second module and the third scattering waves reflected back to the second module.).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, modified Connor teaches a system comprising: a body defining an annular-shaped opening (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the body is configured to be worn on a hand of a user such that a digit of the hand extends through the opening (arcuate band 5601 is configured to span the circumference of body part, such as the finger, therefore it is configured to be worn on the hand of a user such that a digit of the hand extends through the opening); a first module comprising: a receiver/transmitter configured to transmit electromagnetic waves (see rejection of claim 1 above) within a certain frequency range (microwave energy is within the microwave frequency range) into the digit and receive scattering waves reflected back to the first module (see the rejection of claim 1 above); and a computing device comprising: a processor (data processor 5604), the system configured to perform one or more operations comprising: transmit, by the first module, a first electromagnetic waves into a digit of a user (see the rejection of claim 1 above), receive, by the first module, a first scattering waves reflected back to the first module (see the rejection of claim 1 above), estimate a permittivity based on the first electromagnetic waves and the first scattering waves (see the rejection of claim 1 above), and estimate, during a second time period, a blood glucose concentration based on the estimated permittivity and a reference dataset and providing the blood glucose concentration as output (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Modified Connor, as applied to claim 1, does not teach a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon one or more instructions executable by the processor to enable the first module to perform the one or more operations. However, the functional limitations of estimating a blood glucose concentration based on the estimated permittivity and a reference dataset indicates that the reference dataset must be stored in memory. Additionally, the instructions to estimate a blood glucose concentration based on the estimated permittivity and must be stored in a memory to be performed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system of modified Connor to include a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon one or more instructions executable by the processor to enable the first module to perform the one or more operations.
It is noted that the device taught by modified Connor emits and receives microwave energy. OSHA teaches that microwaves (frequencies between 33MHz and 3GHz) are a subset of RF frequencies (between 3kHz and 300GHz). Therefore the device taught by modified Connor reads on the limitations of claim 15, wherein a frequency range of the electromagnetic waves comprises an RF frequency range.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Connor teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the body further comprises: a second module comprising: a receiver, a (Fig. 56, [0709]: a second microwave sensor set comprising emitter 5612 and receiver 5614), wherein the second module is located in the body opposite the first module (The set comprising 5612 and 5614 is opposite the first module (set comprising 5606 and 5608)); and wherein the computing device causes the second module to perform operations comprising: transmit, by the second module, a second electromagnetic waves into a digit of a user ([0708] energy emitters are configured to emit microwave energy), receive, by the second module, a second scattering waves passing through the digit from the first module; wherein estimating the permittivity is further based on the second scattering waves received by the second module, and receive, by the second module, a third scattering waves reflected back to the second module ([0708]: “In this example, the body glucose level of the person wearing this device can be estimated by analyzing the transmission of microwave energy from microwave energy emitters to microwave energy receivers (and/or reflected back to energy emitters) in the plurality of sets.” Therefore estimating the permittivity is based on the scattered waves passing through the digit from each module to the other modules, as well as the scattered waves reflected back to each respective module. This would include the second scattering waves passing through the digit from the first module to the second module and the third scattering waves reflected back to the second module.).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Connor teaches a method for measuring a glucose concentration level using a measurement device (wearable device of Fig. 56) configured to be worn on a hand of a user (arcuate band 5601 is configured to span the circumference of body part, such as the finger, therefore it is configured to be worn on the hand of a user), the device comprising a first module including a receiver/transmitter ([0709]: a first microwave sensor set comprising microwave energy receiver 5608 and microwave energy emitter 5606), the method comprising: transmitting, by the first module, a first electromagnetic waves into a digit of a user ([0708]: “transmission of microwave energy from microwave energy emitters”. This would be transmitted into the digit as the band is configured to span a finger.); receiving, by the first module, a first scattering waves reflected back to the first module ([0708]: some electromagnetic waves will be reflected to microwave energy receivers); and estimating, during a second time period, a blood glucose concentration ([0708]: “body glucose level of the person wearing this device can be estimated by analyzing the transmission of microwave energy from microwave energy emitters to microwave energy receivers (and/or reflected back to energy emitters) in the plurality of sets”) and providing the blood glucose concentration as output (the data processor 5604 measures the blood glucose level and this data is transmitted (i.e., output) by the data transmitter 5605).
The device of Fig. 56 of Connor does not teach the method comprising estimating a permittivity based on the first electromagnetic waves and the first scattering waves, or estimating the blood glucose concentration based on the estimated permittivity.
Par. [0167-0168] of Connor teaches examples of methods using microwave energy emitters and receivers to estimate blood glucose concentrations. Permittivity can be measured based on emitting and receiving microwave-level electromagnetic energy and the resonant frequency of a resonator. In an example, body glucose levels in nearby body fluid and/or tissue is estimated by measuring the permittivity of that body fluid and/or tissue.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Connor to include estimating a permittivity based on the first electromagnetic waves and the first scattering waves, (the measuring is considered estimating because the permittivity is derived from the resonant frequency of the resonator) and estimating the blood glucose concentration based on the estimated permittivity. This combination comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Modified Connor does not teach the method comprising estimating the blood glucose concentrations based on a reference dataset or performing a calibration of the device during a first time period prior to the device estimating the blood glucose concentration during the second time period.
Fig. 62 of Connor teaches an embodiment of the wearable device comprising a fluid-based glucose sensor for measuring body glucose level. Connor further teaches a method of taking measurements from the fluid-based glucose sensor (i.e., reference dataset) to calibrate measurement of body glucose level with the energy emitter and energy receiver ([0724]). Following the calibration (i.e., first time period), the estimation of blood glucose concentration (i.e., second time period) are performed and are based on the calibration glucose measurements (i.e., reference dataset).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by modified Connor such that the device includes a fluid-based glucose sensor, and the method is further comprising: estimating the blood glucose concentration is based on a reference dataset, and performing a calibration of the device during a first time period prior to the device estimating the blood glucose concentration during the second time period. Performing a calibration is a common technique to correlate estimations (those measured by the first module) to standard measurements (those measured by the fluid-based glucose sensor). This combination merely comprises applying a known technique to a known device (method) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.D.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified Connor teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the device further comprises a second module including a receiver and transmitter (Fig. 56, [0709]: a second microwave sensor set comprising emitter 5612 and receiver 5614), the method further comprising: transmitting, by the second module, a second electromagnetic waves into a digit of a user ([0708] energy emitters are configured to emit microwave energy); receiving, by the second module, a second scattering waves passing through the digit from the first module; wherein estimating the permittivity is further based on the second scattering waves received by the second module, and receiving, by the second module, a third scattering waves reflected back to the second module; wherein estimating the permittivity is further based on the second electromagnetic waves and the third scattering waves ([0708]: “In this example, the body glucose level of the person wearing this device can be estimated by analyzing the transmission of microwave energy from microwave energy emitters to microwave energy receivers (and/or reflected back to energy emitters) in the plurality of sets.” Therefore estimating the permittivity is based on the scattered waves passing through the digit from each module to the other modules, as well as the scattered waves reflected back to each respective module. This would include the second scattering waves passing through the digit from the first module to the second module and the third scattering waves reflected back to the second module.).
Claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, and 19, in view of US Patent Publication 2021/0161419 by Nakamura et al., hereinafter “Nakamura”.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, modified Connor teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein estimating the permittivity further comprises: determining a complex permittivity corresponding to an amplitude and phase characteristics of the scattering waves, or wherein the estimated permittivity of the user is further based on a vacuum permittivity.
Nakamura teaches a method of estimating a component concentration, such as glucose. A measurement subject is irradiated with electromagnetic waves in the microwave band, and the electromagnetic waves reflected off or transmitted through the measurement subject are detected to acquire a complex permittivity ([0029]). A receiver 22 receives the electromagnetic waves and a measurement portion 23 that calculates a complex permittivity spectrum from the amplitude or the phase of the electromagnetic waves ([0030]). This method of measuring a component concentration using the complex permittivity suppresses the influence of a change in water content, making it possible to measure the component concentration at a high level of precision ([0017]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device of modified Connor by substituting the receiver with that of Nakamura, such that estimating the permittivity comprises determining a complex permittivity corresponding to an amplitude and phase characteristics of the scattering waves and wherein the estimated permittivity of the user is further based on a vacuum permittivity, as taught by Nakamura. Using complex permittivity to measuring a component concentration suppresses the influence of a change in water content, making it possible to measure the component concentration at a high level of precision (Nakamura, [0017]).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Connor teaches the device of claim 6, but does not teach wherein performing the calibration further comprises: estimate the permittivity of the user during one or more intervals of the first time period, obtain one or more reference values corresponding to glucose concentration values measured during the one or more intervals of the first time period, and produce a model comprising a reference electromagnetic wave plot and a scattered wave plot, wherein the estimated blood glucose concentration is determined during the second time period after the first time period and based on the model, or wherein the calibration during the first time period comprises a plurality of permittivity measurements and corresponding reference values obtained during a plurality of measurement intervals.
Nakamura teaches a method of generating a calibration model in advance (i.e., during a first period) by transmitting electromagnetic waves to a material in which the concentration is known (i.e., reference values) ([0039]). Complex permittivities are measured at a plurality of times at a plurality of frequencies and a calibration model is generated from the complex permittivities. The calibration model is then applied to calculate the component concentration. The calibration model generated at multiple frequencies is applied such that a drift of a plurality of permittivities resulting from a change in the water content or the like can be suppressed ([0064]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device of modified Connor such that the calibration further comprises: estimate the permittivity of the user during one or more intervals of the first time period, obtain one or more reference values corresponding to glucose concentration values measured during the one or more intervals of the first time period, and produce a model comprising a reference electromagnetic wave plot and a scattered wave plot, wherein the estimated blood glucose concentration is determined during the second time period after the first time period and based on the model; and wherein the calibration during the first time period comprises a plurality of permittivity measurements and corresponding reference values obtained during a plurality of measurement intervals, such that a drift of a plurality of permittivities resulting from a change in the water content or the like can be suppressed, as taught by Nakamura ([0064]). It is noted that the calibration model includes the multiple input frequencies of the first period (i.e., reference electromagnetic plot) and the corresponding complex permittivities (i.e., scattered wave plot).
Regarding claim 14, modified Connor teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the computing device further performs operations comprising: perform a calibration of the device during a first time period prior to the device to estimate the blood glucose concentration of the user during a second time period (obtaining of the reference dataset by the fluid-based glucose sensor occurs before (i.e., in a first time period) the estimation of the blood glucose concentration), but does not teach the calibration comprising: estimate the permittivity of the user during one or more intervals of the first time period, obtain one or more reference values corresponding to glucose concentration values measured during the one or more intervals of the first time period, and producing a model comprising a reference electromagnetic wave plot and a scattered wave plot; wherein the estimated blood glucose concentration is determined during the second time period after the first time period and based on the model.
Nakamura teaches a method of generating a calibration model in advance (i.e., during a first period) by transmitting electromagnetic waves to a material in which the concentration is known (i.e., reference values) ([0039]). Complex permittivities are measured at a plurality of times at a plurality of frequencies and a calibration model is generated from the complex permittivities. The calibration model is then applied to calculate the component concentration. The calibration model generated at multiple frequencies is applied such that a drift of a plurality of permittivities resulting from a change in the water content or the like can be suppressed ([0064]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system of modified Connor such that the calibration comprises: estimate the permittivity of the user during one or more intervals of the first time period, obtain one or more reference values corresponding to glucose concentration values measured during the one or more intervals of the first time period, and producing a model comprising a reference electromagnetic wave plot and a scattered wave plot; wherein the estimated blood glucose concentration is determined during the second time period after the first time period and based on the model, such that a drift of a plurality of permittivities resulting from a change in the water content or the like can be suppressed, as taught by Nakamura ([0064]). It is noted that the calibration model includes the multiple input frequencies of the first period (i.e., reference electromagnetic plot) and the corresponding complex permittivities (i.e., scattered wave plot).
Regarding claim 20, modified Connor teaches the method of claim 19, but does not teach wherein performing the calibration further comprises: estimating the permittivity of the user during one or more intervals for the first time period; obtaining the reference dataset comprising one or more reference values corresponding to glucose concentration values measured during the one or more intervals for the first time period; and producing a model comprising a reference electromagnetic wave plot and a scattered wave plot based on the reference dataset and the permittivity estimated during the first time period; wherein the estimated blood glucose concentration is determined during the second time period after the first time period and based on the model.
Nakamura teaches a method of generating a calibration model in advance (i.e., during a first period) by transmitting electromagnetic waves to a material in which the concentration is known (i.e., reference values) ([0039]). Complex permittivities are measured at a plurality of times at a plurality of frequencies and a calibration model is generated from the complex permittivities. The calibration model is then applied to calculate the component concentration. The calibration model generated at multiple frequencies is applied such that a drift of a plurality of permittivities resulting from a change in the water content or the like can be suppressed ([0064]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of modified Connor such that the calibration comprises: estimating the permittivity of the user during one or more intervals for the first time period; obtaining the reference dataset comprising one or more reference values corresponding to glucose concentration values measured during the one or more intervals for the first time period; and producing a model comprising a reference electromagnetic wave plot and a scattered wave plot based on the reference dataset and the permittivity estimated during the first time period; wherein the estimated blood glucose concentration is determined during the second time period after the first time period and based on the model, such that a drift of a plurality of permittivities resulting from a change in the water content or the like can be suppressed, as taught by Nakamura ([0064]). It is noted that the calibration model includes the multiple input frequencies of the first period (i.e., reference electromagnetic plot) and the corresponding complex permittivities (i.e., scattered wave plot).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2010/0298680 by Talary et al. teaches a system for determining glucose concentrations in tissue by determining a complex permittivity based on a calibrated model.
US Patent Publication 2012/0310055 by Jean teaches an electromagnetic sensor system and method for the non-invasive measurement of blood glucose based on its complex electrical permittivity within the frequency range from near DC to microwave frequencies.
US Patent Publication 2022/0378338 by Castinera Moreira et al. teaches a non-invasive measuring device for measuring blood glucose concentrations on a user's finger, based on microwave signals sensitive to differences in electrical permittivity caused by changes in blood glucose concentration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791