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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-43 are currently pending. Claim Objections Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36 recites that the plurality of safety thresholds comprise a plurality of potential conditions, but the numbering of the conditions is inconsistently applied. For example, a glucose level being less than or equal to a first threshold between 50 mg/dL and 70 mg/dL is labeled “( i )” but a glucose level being greater than or equal to a second threshold between 300 mg/dL and 400 mg/dL and an amount of medicament in a medicament cartridge being below a minimum threshold are both also labeled “( i )” and a user selection of a distress notification is not numbered. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1 and 37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/303015 (“the ‘015 application”) in view of Hayes (US 2015/0173674) . Regarding Claim s 1 and 37 of the current application , Claim 1 of the ‘015 application recites all of the limitations of Claim s 1 and 37 of the current application with the exception of the sensing system comprising at least one of a geospatial location sensor or a motion sensor, receiving sensing data from the sensing system, the sensing data indicating at least a level of motion of the subject, and wherein the distress action is executed based at least in part on the sensing data. That is, Claim 1 of the ‘015 application does not teach the limitations pertaining to the sensing system and/or the sensing data. However, Hayes teaches a physiological sensing device that obtains sensing data including at least one of geospatial location data or motion data, e.g. see Hayes [0050] -[ 0052], and further provides an alarm based on various measured parameters including movement (i.e. the sensing data ) , e.g. see Hayes [0067] . Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Claim 1 of the ‘015 application to incorporate the sens ing system and sensing data being a basis for the alarm as taught by Hayes in order to enable patients to quickly and effectively address adverse health conditions , e.g. see Hayes [ 0002 ] -[ 0003] . Hence, Claims 1 and 37 of the current application are obvious over Claim 1 of the ‘015 application in view of Hayes . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim 36 of the current application provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 28 of the ‘015 application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 28 of the ‘015 application recites a narrower version of the invention recited by Claim 36 of the current application. For example, Claim 36 of the current application recites that the plurality of safety thresholds include a glucose level being greater than or equal to “first” and “second” thresholds, whereas Claim 28 of the ‘015 application specifies that the glucose level may be greater than or equal to a “minimum” threshold and a “maximum” threshold, which represent narrower language than the language recited in Claim 36 of the current application. Hence, Claim 28 of the ‘015 application anticipates Claim 36 of the current application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1- 43 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 Claim s 1 and 36-37 , Claim s 1 and 36-37 recite “ the ambulatory medicament device .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, this language will be interpreted as “an ambulatory medicament device.” Additionally, specifically regarding Claim 36 , Claim 36 recites “a movement of the subject being equal to or less than a negligible amount of movement.” The term “ negligible ” i s a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ negligible ” 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 example, [0536] of the as-filed Specification states that “the movement of the subject being less than a minimum movement threshold of zero or a negligible amount of movement,” which indicates that a “negligible” amount of movement is greater than zero (as evidenced by the “or”), but does not provide any sort of language explaining what amount would be “negligible” versus not “negligible . ” Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claims 8, 15, and 22, Claims 8, 15, and 22 recite “the selection interface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, this language will be interpreted as “a selection interface.” Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claims 12 and 13 , Claims 12 and 13 recite “the period of time.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, this language will be interpreted as “a period of time.” Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites “a signal to resume the function.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, this language will be interpreted as “a signal to resume a function.” Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 31 , Claim 31 recites “the minimum movement threshold is zero or a negligible amount of movement.” The term “ negligible ” i s a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ negligible ” 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 example, [0536] of the as-filed Specification states that “the movement of the subject being less than a minimum movement threshold of zero or a negligible amount of movement,” which indicates that a “negligible” amount of movement is greater than zero (as evidenced by the “or”), but does not provide any sort of language explaining what amount would be “negligible” versus not “negligible . ” Additionally, Claim 31 recites “ the minimum movement threshold.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, this language will be interpreted as “a minimum movement threshold.” Appropriate correction is required. Regarding Claim 32 , Claim 32 recites “ the minimum threshold amount of medicament.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, this language will be interpreted as “a minimum threshold amount of medicament .” Appropriate correction is required. Dependent Claim s 2-7, 9-11, 16 -21 , 23- 30, 32- 35, and 38-43 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence from independent Claim 1 . 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 1-43 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. Step 1 Claims 1-43 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-43 are drawn to system s for outputting distress alerts, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Prong 1 of Step 2A Claim 1 , which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A glucose level control system configured to determine that status information satisfies at least one of a plurality of safety thresholds and to automatically execute a distress action, the glucose level control system comprising: a data interface configured to connect to a remote electronic device and to an associated ambulatory medicament pump; a sensing system comprising at least one of a geospatial location sensor or a motion sensor; a non-transitory memory configured to store specific computer-executable instructions and the status information comprising at least one of device information pertaining to a condition of the ambulatory medicament device or subject information pertaining to a condition of a subject; and a hardware processor in communication with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the specific computer-executable instructions to at least: receive the status information via the data interface; receive sensing data from the sensing system, the sensing data indicating at least a level of motion of the subject ; determine that the status information satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds, wherein the plurality of safety thresholds comprises : a glucose level of a subject being less than a first threshold ; a glucose level of a subject being greater than a second threshold ; a lack of data from a glucose level sensor for at least a threshold amount of time ; the sensing data from the geospatial sensor indicating an unchanged position of the subject for at least a second threshold amount of time ; the sensing data from the motion sensor indicating a lack of motion of the subject for at least a third threshold amount of time ; aberrant data from the glucose level sensor beyond an aberrant data threshold ; aberrant usage of the glucose level control system beyond an aberrant usage threshold ; and the ambulatory medicament device being in a non-functional state ; and in response to determining that the status information satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds and based at least in part on the sensing data, automatically execute a distress action and transmit , via the data interface, a dose instruction to the associated ambulatory medicament pump, wherein executing the distress action comprises transmitting a distress signal to a remote electronic device. The underlined limitations as shown above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of receiving status information, receiving sensing data, determining that the status information satisfies at least one of a plurality of safety thresholds, and executing a distress action and transmitting a dose instruction in response to the status information satisfying the safety threshold and based at least in part on the sensing data recite following rules or instructions for alerting users of a safety or distress event ), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below. Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 36 and 37 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1 , because the only difference between Claims 1 and 36 is that Claim 36 recites some different types of safety thresholds and does not recite the limitations pertaining to the sensing system and sensing data, and the only difference between Claims 1 and 37 is that Claim 37 recites some different types of safety thresholds . Dependent Claims 2-35 and 38-43 include other limitations, for example Claim s 2 and 38 recit e that the distress action comprises generating a distress alert , Claim 3 recites receiving user input indicating receipt of the distress alert, Claims 4-5 recite indicating the status information satisfying the safety thresholds, Claim 6 -7 recite transmitting the distress alert, Claim 8 recites receiving a confirmation that the distress alert has been received and generating a success alert indicating the confirmation, Claim s 9 -13 recite specific type s of distress action s , Claim s 1 4 -16 recite actions to be taken in response to the distress actions, Claim 17 recites requesting the status information, Claims 18-21 recite requiring that the status information satisfy two or more of the safety thresholds and specific types of safety thresholds, Claim s 22 and 39-40 recite enabling receiving a user selection, Claim 23 recites transmitting a notification that the safety threshold is no longer satisfied, Claim 24 recites transmitting an alert based on a duration or severity level of the safety thresholds being satisfied, Claims 25-26 recites types of data interface , Claim 27 recites a pump monitoring system for obtaining the device information, Claims 28-32 recite particular types of safety thresholds, Claim 33 recites that a glucose level may be measured or predicted, Claim 34 recites receiving the plurality of safety thresholds, Claim 35 recites a particular type of implementation of the process recited in Claim 1 , Claims 41-42 recites receiving various types of user selections , and Claim 43 recites types of sensors , but these only serve to narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. H ence dependent Claims 2-35 and 38-43 nonetheless recite the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 36-37 . Hence Claims 1-43 recite the aforementioned abstract idea. Prong 2 of Step 2A Claims 1 and 36-37 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the data interface, the ambulatory medicament pump, the sensing system, the hardware processor, the remote electronic device ) amount to no more than limitations which: amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the ambulatory medicament pump, the sensing system, the hardware processor, and the remote electronic device , which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0043] -[ 0044], [ 0060 ] , [0080], [0428], and [0529] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of the types of safety thresholds , which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of patient/medical monitoring , e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of storing the status information and device information , which amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, d ependent Claims 2-35 and 38-43 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the types of data interfaces recited in dependent Claim 25-26 , the hardware elements recited in dependent Claim 35 , and the types of sensors recited in dependent Claim 43 ), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1 and 36-37 , and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application . Hence Claims 1-43 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Claims 1 and 36-37 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the data interface, the ambulatory medicament pump, the sensing system, the hardware processor, the remote electronic device ), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which: amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by: The present Specification expressly disclos ing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature: [0043] -[ 0044], [0060], [0080], [0428], and [0529] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the ambulatory medicament pump, the sensing system, the hardware processor, and the remote electronic device ) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems; Relevant c ourt decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the additional elements recite receiv ing /transmitting status information, sensing data, and the distress action over a network, for example the Internet , e.g. see [ 0065 ] -[ 0066] and [0071]-[0075] of the as-filed Specification ; Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the storing of the status information and device information ; Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the additional elements recite storing status information and device data, and retrieving the data from storage in order to ultimately determine that the safety thresholds have been satisfied and execute the distress acton ; Dependent Claims 2-35 and 38-43 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the types of data interfaces recited in dependent Claim 25-26 , the hardware elements recited in dependent Claim 35 , and the types of sensors recited in dependent Claim 43 ) , and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1 and 36-37 , and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea . Hence, Claims 1-43 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above . Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually , and t here is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-43 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(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. Claim s 1 -16, 18-20, 22-24, 31, 33 , and 35- 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes (US 2015/0173674). Regarding Claim 1 , Hayes discloses the following: A glucose level control system configured to determine that status information satisfies at least one of a plurality of safety thresholds and to automatically execute a distress action, the glucose level control system comprising: a data interface configured to connect to a remote electronic device and to an associated ambulatory medicament pump (The system includes a wireless network (i.e. a data interface) that connects various device s (i.e. a ny of which may be interpreted as a remote electronic device) with an infusion pump, e.g. see Hayes [0027], Fig. 1.) ; a sensing system comprising at least one of a geospatial location sensor or a motion sensor (The system includes a physiological sensing device that includes a GPS device that detect s and transmits its location , and further includes a pedometer that detects motion of a user , e.g. see Hayes [00 50 ] -[ 0052] .) ; a non-transitory memory configured to store specific computer-executable instructions and the status information comprising at least one of device information pertaining to a condition of the ambulatory medicament device or subject information pertaining to a condition of a subject (The system includes a user computing device which may include mobile and/or desktop computing devices that execute the functions of the system, e.g. see Hayes [0055] and [0058], wherein the mobile and/or desktop computing devices include memory that stores instructions executed by a processor, e.g. see Hayes [0060]-[0062]. Furthermore, the system receives and stores event data , wherein the event data is indicative of user condition information (i.e. subject information) , e.g. see Hayes [0072], [0076], and [00 97 ] -[ 0 100 ].) ; and a hardware processor in communication with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the specific computer-executable instructions (The mobile and desktop computing devices include processors to execute the instructions , e.g. see Hayes [00 60 ] -[ 0062] .) to at least: receive the status information via the data interface (The mobile and desktop computing devices wirelessly (i.e. via a data interface) receives data from the various devices, including patient condition information (i.e. status information), e.g. see Hayes [00 71 ] -[ 0072] .) ; receive sensing data from the sensing system, the sensing data indicating at least a level of motion of the subject ( The physiological sensing device detects motion of a user, e.g. see Hayes [0050] -[ 0052], wherein the physiological sensing device wirelessly communicates with the user’s computing device , e.g. see Hayes [0071]-[0072]. ) ; determine that the status information satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds (The physiological sensing device evaluates monitored parameters against threshold values, e.g. see Hayes [0030], wherein the evaluation may be based on whether the parameters satisfy (via exceeding or being below) the threshold values, e.g. see Hayes [0032].) , wherein the plurality of safety thresholds comprises: a glucose level of a subject being less than a first threshold (The monitored parameters evaluated for satisfying the threshold values include glucose, e.g. see Hayes [0067].) ; a glucose level of a subject being greater than a second threshold (The monitored parameters evaluated for satisfying the threshold values include glucose, e.g. see Hayes [0067].) ; a lack of data from a glucose level sensor for at least a threshold amount of time (The monitored parameters may include a period of time of non-use and/or a period of time without receiving a user input, wherein an alarm may be triggered if it is determined that the user has not worn the device and/or provided input (i.e. detecting a lack of data) for a period of time, e.g. see Hayes [0089] and [0107].) ; the sensing data from the geospatial sensor indicating an unchanged position of the subject for at least a second threshold amount of time (The monitored parameters include a lack of motion indicating that the user is in a coma or otherwise incapacitated, e.g. see Hayes [0052].) ; the sensing data from the motion sensor indicating a lack of motion of the subject for at least a third threshold amount of time (The monitored parameters include a lack of motion indicating that the user is in a coma or otherwise incapacitated, e.g. see Hayes [0052].) ; aberrant data from the glucose level sensor beyond an aberrant data threshold (The monitored parameters evaluated for satisfying the threshold values include glucose, e.g. see Hayes [0067].) ; aberrant usage of the glucose level control system beyond an aberrant usage threshold (The system includes non-wearing alarms (i.e. aberrant usage) that are detected based on threshold values, e.g. see Hayes [0089].) ; and the ambulatory medicament device being in a non-functional state; and in response to determining that the status information satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds and based at least in part on the sensing data, automatically execute a distress action and transmit, via the data interface, a dose instruction to the associated ambulatory medicament pump, wherein executing the distress action comprises transmitting a distress signal to a remote electronic device (The system transmits (i.e. executes) an alarm (i.e. a distress action) wirelessly (i.e. via the data interface) when the alarm condition is detected, e.g. see Hayes [0072], and wherein the alarm condition may be based on a lack of motion (i.e. sensing data), e.g. see Hayes [0052], and/or physiological parameters such as glucose satisfying a threshold indicating a hypoglycemia even, e.g. see Hayes [0067]. Furthermore, upon detecting a hypoglycemia event, the system may send a communication to the infusion pump system to suspend insulin dispensations (i.e. a dose instruction), e.g. see Hayes [0029] and [0077].) . Regarding Claim 2 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein executing the distress action comprises generating a distress alert (The system transmits (i.e. executes) an alarm (i.e. a distress action) wirelessly (i.e. via the data interface) when the alarm condition is detected, e.g. see Hayes [0072]. That is, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the transmitted alarm is reasonably interpreted as a “distress alert.”) . Regarding Claim 3 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 2 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 2, wherein generating the distress alert comprises receiving a user input configured to indication of receipt of the distress alert (The system enables a patient to acknowledge (i.e. a user input indicating receipt) an alarm (i.e. distress alert), e.g. see Hayes [0073] and [0102] -[ 0103].) . Regarding Claim 4 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein executing the distress action comprises transmitting, via the data interface, an indication of the status information satisfying the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds (The alarm (i.e. the distress action) is transmitted (i.e. executed) along with an indication of the severity of the condition that caused the alarm, e.g. see Hayes [0072].) . Regarding Claim 5 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 2 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 2, wherein the distress alert comprises an indication of the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds or of a geolocation position of the ambulatory medicament pump (The transmitted alarm (i.e. the distress alert) includes an indication of the severity of the condition that caused the alarm, e.g. see Hayes [0072].) . Regarding Claim 6 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 2 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 2, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to execute the specific computer-executable instructions to at least: transmit the distress alert to a remote electronic device (The mobile and desktop computing devices include processors to execute the instructions, e.g. see Hayes [0060] -[ 0062], wherein the functions of the invention include transmitting the alarm to a remote electronic device such as the user’s computing device, e.g. see Hayes [0072].) . Regarding Claim 7 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 6 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 6, wherein transmitting the distress alert to a remote electronic device comprises initiating an audio call or transmitting a text message or other data to a remote computing device (The mobile and desktop computing devices include processors to execute the instructions, e.g. see Hayes [0060]-[0062], wherein the functions of the invention include transmitting the alarm to a remote electronic device such as the user’s computing device and/or the caregiver’s device , e.g. see Hayes [0034] and [0072], wherein the alarm includes an indication of the severity of the condition that caused the alarm (i.e. other data), e.g. see Hayes [0072], a communication to a caregiver in the form of a telephone call (i.e. an audio call) and/or an SMS text message or email, e.g. see Hayes [0034].) . Regarding Claim 8 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 6 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 6, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to execute the specific computer-executable instructions to at least: receive, via the data interface from the remote electronic device, a confirmation signal configured to indicate that the distress alert was received by the remote electronic device (The user may provide an acknowledgement of the alarm (i.e. a confirmation signal) via the user’s computing device (i.e. the remote electronic device), e.g. see Hayes [0073].) ; and generate, via the selection interface and based on receiving the confirmation signal, a success alert configured to indicate that the distress alert was successfully received by the remote electronic device (The user acknowledging the alarm may cause the alarm to be silenced (i.e. the signal silencing the alarm is interpreted as “a success alert”) , e.g. see Hayes [00 73 ].) . Regarding Claim 9 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein executing the distress action comprises generating a signal to suspend function of one or more elements of the ambulatory medicament pump for a period of time (The alarm may cause the pump to suspend the dispensing of insulin, e.g. see Hayes [0029].) . Regarding Claim 10 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein executing the distress action comprises generating a signal to modify therapy delivered by the ambulatory medicament pump (The alarm may cause the pump to suspend (i.e. modify) the dispensing of insulin, e.g. see Hayes [0029].) . Regarding Claim 11 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 10 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 10, wherein modifying the therapy delivered by the ambulatory medicament pump comprises reducing an amount of insulin delivered by the ambulatory medicament pump (The alarm may cause the pump to suspend (i.e. reduce) the dispensing of insulin, e.g. see Hayes [0029].) . Regarding Claim 12 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 10 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 10, wherein the period of time comprises a preset period of time (The amount of time for determining an alarm condition may be a predefined (i.e. preset) period of time, e.g. see Hayes [0030].) . Regarding Claim 13 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 10 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 10, wherein the period of time is based at least in part on a duration or severity level associated with the satisfying the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds (The amount of time for determining an alarm condition may be a predefined period of time (i.e. based at least in part on a duration), e.g. see Hayes [0030].) . Regarding Claim 14 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 10 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 10, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to execute the specific computer-executable instructions to at least: determine that the status information no longer satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds (The system may receive a “suspend insulin delivery” command , and after a period of time reactivate the pump (i.e. the status information no longer satisfies the safety threshold) , e.g. see Hayes [0077].) ; and in response to the determination that the status information no longer fails to satisfy the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds, generate a signal to resume the function of the one or more elements of the ambulatory medicament pump (The system may reactivate the pump after suspending the insulin delivery after a period of time, e.g. see Hayes [0077].) . Regarding Claim 15 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 14 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 14, wherein determining that the status information no longer satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds comprises receiving user interaction with the selection interface or with a selection interface of the ambulatory medicament pump (The system may receive a “suspend insulin delivery” command from a user (i.e. a user interaction) , wherein the command may cause a temporary suspension of the dispensations of insulin and reactivate the pump after a period of time (i.e. the status information no longer satisfies the safety threshold) , e.g. see Hayes [0077].) . Regarding Claim 16 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 15 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 15, wherein receiving the user interaction with the selection interface comprises preventing execution of further distress actions for a period of time (The system may receive a “suspend insulin delivery” command from a user (i.e. a user interaction) which causes the device to temporarily stop dispensing insulin , e.g. see Hayes [0077] , wherein after receiving the suspension command, the system provides periodic notifications reminding the user that the dispensing has been suspended, e.g. see Hayes [0106] – that is, the period between the suspend command and the reminders is interpreted as a period for which “further distress actions” are prevented .) . Regarding Claim 18 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein determining that the status information satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds comprises determining that the status information satisfies two or more of the plurality of safety thresholds (The system includes a plurality of threshold values and may detect a plurality of alarm conditions, e.g. see Hayes [0055], [0065], [0067], [0098], and [0109] -[ 0110].) . Regarding Claim 19 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 18 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 18, wherein the two or more of the plurality of safety thresholds comprises: the glucose level of a subject being less than the first threshold (The patient data evaluated against the threshold values may include glucose, e.g. see Hayes [0067], wherein the evaluation may be that the glucose is below a threshold, e.g. see Hayes [0032].) ; and the movement of the subject being less than the minimum movement threshold for the threshold amount of time (The patient data evaluated against the threshold values may include movement, e.g. see Hayes [0067], wherein the evaluation may be that the patient data is below a threshold, e.g. see Hayes [0032].) . Regarding Claim 20 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 18 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 18, wherein the two or more of the plurality of safety thresholds comprises: the glucose level of a subject being greater than the second threshold (The patient data evaluated against the threshold values may include glucose, e.g. see Hayes [0067], wherein the evaluation may be that the glucose is above a threshold, e.g. see Hayes [0032].) ; and the movement of the subject being less than the minimum movement threshold for the threshold amount of time (The patient data evaluated against the threshold values may include movement, e.g. see Hayes [0067], wherein the evaluation may be that the patient data is below a threshold, e.g. see Hayes [0032].) . Regarding Claim 22 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, further comprising the selection interface ( The system enables a patient to make a selection to call a caregiver, e.g. see Hayes [0074] .) . Regarding Claim 23 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to execute the specific computer-executable instructions to at least : transmit, via the data interface to the remote electronic device, an indication that the status information no longer satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds (The system may receive a “suspend insulin delivery” command from a user (i.e. a user interaction), wherein the command may cause a temporary suspension of the dispensations of insulin and reactivate the pump after a period of time (i.e. the status information no longer satisfies the safety threshold), e.g. see Hayes [0077].) . Regarding Claim 24 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to execute the specific computer-executable instructions to at least: transmit a third-party alert to the remote electronic device based at least in part on a duration or severity level associated with the satisfying the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds (The system transmits the alarms to a caregiver’s computing device, e.g. see Hayes [0034], wherein the alarms may indicate a severity of the alarm condition, e.g. see Hayes [0032] and [0101].) , the third-party alert comprising indication of at least the duration or severity level associated with the satisfying the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds (The alarms may indicate a severity of the alarm condition, e.g. see Hayes [0032] and [0101].) . Regarding Claim 31 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein the minimum movement threshold is zero or a negligible amount of movement within a frame of reference (The system detects a lack of motion (i.e. zero or a negligible amount of movement), which may indicate that the user is in a coma or otherwise incapacitated , e.g. see Hayes [ 0052 ] , and wherein the system may issue alarms based on movement data satisfying threshold values, e.g. see Hayes [0067] .) . Regarding Claim 33 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: The glucose level control system of Claim 1, wherein the glucose level of the subject comprises a measured glucose level or a predicted glucose level (The parameters evaluated for satisfying the threshold values include measured parameters including glucose, e.g. see Hayes [0067]. ) . Regarding Claim 35 , Hayes discloses the limitations of Claim 1 , and further discloses the following: An ambulatory medicament pump, comprising: the glucose level control system of Claim 1 (See the grounds of rejection provided for Claim 1 above) ; and a pump mechanism configured to deliver medicament to a subject (The system includes a portable infusion pump system, e.g. see Hayes [0027] and [0029], wherein the infusion pump may temporarily suspend insulin (i.e. medicament) dispensations and be reactivated, e.g. see Hayes [0077] and [0106] – that is, the insulin pump is configured to deliver insulin, suspend the delivery, and resume the delivery of the insulin .) . Regarding Claim 36 , Hayes discloses the following: A glucose level control system configured to determine that status information satisfies at least one of a plurality of safety thresholds and to automatically generate a distress alert, the glucose level control system comprising: a data interface configured to connect to a remote electronic device and to an associated ambulatory medicament pump (The system includes a wireless network (i.e. a data interface) that connects various devices (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a remote electronic device) with an infusion pump, e.g. see Hayes [0027], Fig. 1.) ; a non-transitory memory configured to store specific computer-executable instructions and status information comprising at least one of device information pertaining to a condition of the ambulatory medicament device or subject information pertaining to a condition of a subject (The system includes a user computing device which may include mobile and/or desktop computing devices that execute the functions of the system, e.g. see Hayes [0055] and [0058], wherein the mobile and/or desktop computing devices include memory that stores instructions executed by a processor, e.g. see Hayes [0060]-[0062]. Furthermore, the system receives and stores event data, wherein the event data is indicative of user condition information, e.g. see Hayes [0072], [0076], and [0097] -[ 0100].) ; and a hardware processor in communication with the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the specific computer-executable instructions (The mobile and desktop computing devices include processors to execute the instructions, e.g. see Hayes [0060] -[ 0062].) to at least: receive the status information via the data interface (The mobile and desktop computing devices wirelessly (i.e. via a data interface) receives data from the various devices, including patient condition information (i.e. status information), e.g. see Hayes [0071] -[ 0072].) ; determine that the status information satisfies the at least one of the plurality of safety thresholds (The physiological sensing device evaluates monitored parameters against threshold values, e.g. see Hayes [0030], wherein the evaluation may be based on whether the parameters satisfy (via exceeding or being below) the threshold values, e.g. see Hayes [0032].) , wherein the plurality of safety thresholds comprises: ( i ) a glucose level of a subject being less than or equal to a first threshold between 50 mg/dL and 70 mg/dL and (ii) a movement of the subject being equal to or less than a negligible amount of movement within a frame of reference for at least a threshold amount of time between 5 minutes and 1 hour; ( i ) a glucose level of a subject being greater than or equal to a second threshold between 300 mg/dL and 400 mg/dL and (ii) a movement of the subject being equal to or less than the negligible amount of movement within the frame of reference for at least the threshold amount of time; ( i ) an amount of medicament in a medicament cartridge being below a minimum threshold amount of medicament and (ii) a movement of the subject being less than a minimum movement threshold for the threshold amount of time (The monitored parameters include a lack of motion indicating that the user is in a coma or otherwise incapacitated, e.g. see Hayes [0052].) ; and a user selection of a distress notification via a selection interface associate with the ambulatory medicament pump (The system enables a patient to make a selection to call a caregiver (i.e. a distress notification), e.g. see Hayes [0074].) ; and in response to determining that the status information satisfies the at least one of a plurality of safety thresholds, automatically execute a distress action (The system transmits (i.e. executes) an alarm (i.e. a distress action) wirelessly (i.e. via the data interface) when the alarm condition is detected, e.g. see Hayes [0072].) . Regarding Claim 37 , Hayes discloses the following: A distress notification system configured to determine that status information satisfies at least one of a plurality of safety thresholds and to automatically execute a distress action, the distress notification system comprising: a data interface configured to connect to a glucose level control system (The system includes a wireless network (i.e. a data interface) that connects with various devices (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a glucose level control system), e.g. see Hayes [0027], Fig. 1.) ; a sensing sy