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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims Accounting
Applicant's arguments, entered 07/20/2026, have been fully considered.
The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, entered 07/20/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 3, 6, and 14-20 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 3, the claim recites “flashing the hue displayed by the adjustable display” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for this limitation. Claim 1 recites calculating and communicating a color hue, but does not recite displaying any hue on the adjustable display. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “flashing a hue displayed by the adjustable display on and off responsive to the analyte concentration being below a predetermined threshold, wherein the hue is based on the communicated color hue”.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the hue” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for this limitation. It is unclear whether “the hue” is intended to be analogous to the “color hue” recited in claim 1 or a different displayed hue as recited in claim 3. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation of “the hue” is interpreted as “the color hue”.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “wherein the controller is configured to change the hue of the adjustable light display based on the measured analyte reading” in lines 9-10. It is unclear whether “the hue” is intended to be analogous to the “color hue” recited in line 5 of claim 14 or a different displayed hue. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “wherein the controller is configured to change a hue of the adjustable light display based on the measured analyte reading”. This interpretation is consistent with the limitations of claim 7.
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 § 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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Step 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including determining one or more concentration ranges. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of determining one or more concentration ranges based on the analyte concentration sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
The step of calculating a color hue associated with the one or more concentration ranges sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes the use of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mathematical Concept, which is an Abstract Idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites communicating the color hue from the controller to an adjustable display, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The communication of the color hue does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not affect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the changed hue, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Step 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites determining an analyte concentration, communicating the color hue to an adjustable display, wherein the one or more concentration ranges are not stored on the adjustable display, and wherein the adjustable display is positioned in a separate housing. The determining step is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. The adjustable display recited is a generic adjustable display (such as an LCD or LED array), which does not contain a memory, and therefore would not store the one or more concentration ranges. Further, the determining step is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). The step of communicating the color hue is considered extra-solution activity, as the communication of the color hue simply comprises a transmission of the output of the Abstract Idea. This transmission is not relied upon in any way to impose a meaningful limitation such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data communication practices.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, claim 7 recites “modifying a hue displayed by the adjustable display” and claim 14 recites “wherein the controller is configured to change the hue of the adjustable light display based on the measured analyte reading”. These limitations are directed towards the display of a hue based on the communicated color hue, which enables the improvements of usability and privacy of the invention, and is therefore directed to statutory subject matter. It is noted that claim 1 does not include details of displaying a color hue on the adjustable display, and therefore the improvements of usability and privacy are not realized in the limitations of claim 1.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to the data gathering, the details of the content of the data, the display of data, and the operation of the controller. Claims 2 and 4-5 recite details regarding the content of the data. Claim 6 recites details regarding the structure of the hue data. The determining and calculating step recited in claim 1 maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim 3 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim is directed towards the display of a hue, thereby realizing the improvements of usability and privacy of the invention in a similar fashion to claims 7 and 14. Therefore, claim 3 is directed to statutory subject matter and is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2014/0012117 by Mensinger et al. – previously cited, hereinafter “Mensinger” in view of US Patent Publication 2009/0009341 by Gak, hereinafter “Gak”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 12 of Mensinger teaches a method comprising: determining an analyte concentration ([0149]; steps B1204-1206, CGM module outputs blood glucose (BG) value to sensor electronics and the sensor electronics processes BG by calculating estimated glucose value (EGV)); determining one or more concentration ranges, using a controller, based on the analyte concentration, the one or more concentration ranges including a low level concentration range, a target level concentration range, and a high level concentration range ([0149]; the sensor electronics also calculates an expected minimum for a next BG value and an expected maximum for a next BG value at block B1208. The concentration from 0 to the expected minimum is the low-level concentration range, the range between the expected minimum and expected maximum is the target concentration range, and any concentration above the expected maximum is the high-level concentration range. The sensor electronics and the CGM module can be considered the controller).
Fig. 12 of Mensinger does not teach calculating a color hue associated with the one or more concentration ranges; and communicating the one or more concentration ranges to an adjustable display; wherein the one or more concentration ranges are not stored on the adjustable display.
Mensinger further teaches that the CGM module 208 may change the color of the display 222 (i.e., an adjustable display) to reflect the user’s current blood glucose level. The text/background may show a first color, such as green, if the user's blood glucose is within a healthy range, and a second color, such as red, if the user's blood glucose is low or high (i.e., changing a hue displayed by the adjustable display based on the one or more concentration ranges. As the display does not comprise a processor, the calculation of the color hue must be performed by the controller.) ([0176]). The distinguishing colors for the blood glucose level provide visual information to help monitor the blood glucose level.
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 Fig. 12 of Mensinger to include calculating a color hue associated with the one or more concentration ranges; communicating the color hue to an adjustable display, as taught by Mensinger ([0176]) to provide visual information to help monitor the blood glucose level. It is noted that the display 222 is only the display of the smartphone. Therefore, the display does not store data itself. Fig. 2 shows a functional block diagram of the system, including smartphone/tablet 202 and display 222, wherein the display 222 does not comprise a memory. A display receives data/signals indicative of the output to be displayed, however, the display does not store this data as a display does not comprise a memory. Therefore, the method of modified Mensinger teaches wherein the one or more concentration ranges are not stored on the adjustable display.
Modified Mensinger does not teach wherein the adjustable display is positioned in a housing separate from the controller.
Gak teaches a method of obtaining data pertaining to the health of a patient, and displaying the data on a monitor (i.e., adjustable display) based on a range of the data. Fig. 5 of Gak depicts monitor 14, which can adjust the color displayed based on a signal (i.e., calculated color hue) sent from the processor ([0047]). The monitor 14 can be located at a site separate from the patient and the input module and processor (i.e., separate from the controller. See par. [0040]), such as at a nurse’s station or outside a patient’s room in healthcare facility ([0050]).
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 Mensinger such that the adjustable display is positioned in a housing separate from the controller, as this configuration would allow for monitoring of the patient from different sites, as taught by Gak ([0050]). It is noted that the Mensinger is modified to comprise an adjustable display that comprises only color information, as taught by Gak. This modification preserves the functionality of using a display to communicate information about the user’s blood glucose, as taught by Mensinger while providing an adjustable display in a housing separate from the controller, as taught by Gak. Gak is considered analogous art as it is directed towards the display of health information.
Regarding claim 2, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the concentration ranges are adjustable (Mensinger, [0150]; The ranges of acceptable BG values are calculated based on the last EGV, and may be calculated differently depending upon time since implant, therefore the concentration ranges are adjustable.).
Regarding claim 3, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising flashing the hue displayed by the adjustable display on and off responsive to the analyte concentration being below a predetermined threshold (Mensinger, [0176-0177]; “If the user's blood glucose value continues to become increasingly low or high, the CGM module 208 produces additional outputs, such as increasing the intensity of the color and/or causing the text/background to flash. These additional outputs may be generated in response to the CGM module 208 comparing input EGV's to additional programmed threshold values.”).
Regarding 4, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising sending a notification responsive to the one or more concentration ranges being in either of the low level concentration range or the high level concentration range (Mensinger, [0176-0177]; the text/background changing to be a different color when the user’s blood glucose is outside of the target concentration range (i.e., in either the low level concentration range or the high level concentration range) is considered a notification.).
Regarding claim 5, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analyte concentration includes a blood glucose concentration (The method of Fig. 12 of Mensinger is based on blood glucose values (i.e., concentrations); See par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches a method comprising: determining an analyte concentration (See the rejection of claim 1), calculating a color hue associated with the analyte concentration (See the rejection of claim 1; the concentration ranges are based on the analyte concentration, therefore the color hue is based on the analyte concentration); communicating the color hue from a controller to an adjustable display (See the rejection of claim 1); and modifying a hue displayed by the adjustable display based on the analyte concentration (Gak; [0047]; the hue of the display is updated when new data is obtained and a new hue is calculated. When the hue is different, this comprises modifying a hue), wherein the analyte display is not stored on the adjustable display (See the rejection of claim 1), wherein the adjustable display is positioned in a housing separate from the controller (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising flashing the hue displayed by the adjustable display on and off responsive to the analyte concentration being below a predetermined threshold (Mensinger, [0176-0177]; “If the user's blood glucose value continues to become increasingly low or high, the CGM module 208 produces additional outputs, such as increasing the intensity of the color and/or causing the text/background to flash. These additional outputs may be generated in response to the CGM module 208 comparing input EGV's to additional programmed threshold values.”).
Regarding claim 9, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising sending a notification responsive to the analyte concentration being below a predetermined threshold (See the rejection of claim 8, the increasing color intensity and flashing display is the analyte concentration becomes increasingly low, below programmed threshold values, are considered notifications).
Regarding claim 10, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the analyte concentration is determined at least once every five minutes (Mensinger, [0149]; At block B1214 the CGM module 208 stores the expected minimum and maximum BG values for later comparison (e.g., within the next 5 minutes, or other interval of time, prior to receipt of a next data packet from the sensor electronics.)).
Regarding claim 11, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the analyte concentration includes a blood glucose concentration (The method of Fig. 12 of Mensinger is based on blood glucose values (i.e., concentrations); See par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the analyte concentration is determined by reading an output of a database (Mensinger, [0149]; In step B1204, the BG value is stored in temporary storage 210 (i.e., a database)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mensinger in view of Gak, as applied to claim 1, in view of US Patent Publication 2012/0014592 by Abe – previously cited, hereinafter “Abe”.
Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the hue is measured as degrees on a color spectrum.
Abe teaches a method of measuring a hue based on the hue angle (i.e., degrees) in a hue circle or color wheel (i.e., color spectrum) such as in Fig. 3. ([0068]).
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 Mensinger in view of Gak such that the hue is measured as degrees on a color spectrum. This modification would comprise a simple substitution of one known element (measuring the hue based on the degrees of a color spectrum) for another (the method of Mensinger in view of Gak uses identifies color by name (red, orange, yellow, green, etc.) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mensinger in view of Gak, as applied to claim 7, in view of US Patent Publication 2020/0214621 by Keroles et al. – previously cited, hereinafter “Keroles”.
Mensinger in view of Gak teaches the method of claim 7, but does not teach the method further comprising modifying a brightness of the hue displayed by the adjustable display based on a time of day.
Keroles teaches a system comprising a display for communicating physiological information (Figs. 1-2, display 5). Keroles teaches that features such as an ambient light sensor can be added to the system and can be used to adjust the brightness of the display based on the time of day. This adjustment of the brightness can prevent the disturbance of the user ([0068]).
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 Mensinger in view of Gak to include using an ambient light sensor and modifying a brightness of the hue displayed by the adjustable display based on a time of day, to prevent the disturbance of the user, as taught by Keroles ([0068]).
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mensinger in view of Gak in view of US Patent Publication 2016/0310045 by Hoffman et al., hereinafter “Hoffman”.
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 2 of Mensinger teaches a system (system 200) comprising: an adjustable light display ([0077]; display 222 which can be adjusted); and a controller (the sensor electronics and processor can be considered the controller) in communication with the adjustable light display ([0077]; the sensor electronics and processor are in communication with the CGM module 208 (communication between the two are shown in steps B1204, and B1212 of Fig. 12.); wherein the controller is configured to retrieve a measured analyte reading from a database (CGM module 208 (i.e., part of the controller) retrieves the BG value from the temporary storage 210 (i.e., a database) and communicates it to the sensor electronics (i.e., part of the controller) to calculate the EGV.).
Figs. 2 and 12 of Mensinger does not teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate a color hue associated with the measured analyte reading, communicate the color hue to the display, wherein the controller is configured to change the hue of the adjustable light display based on the measured analyte reading, and wherein the measured analyte reading is not stored on the display.
Mensinger further teaches that the CGM module 208 may change the color of the display 222 to reflect the user’s current blood glucose level as a number, as a trend graph, a horizontal bar graph, etc. Processor 206 produces outputs to the display that come from the CGM module ([0077]). The text/background may show a first color, such as green, if the user's blood glucose is within a healthy range, and a second color, such as red, if the user's blood glucose is low or high (i.e., determining a hue displayed by the adjustable display based on the analyte concentration) ([0176]). The distinguishing colors for the blood glucose level provide visual information to help monitor the blood glucose level.
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 Fig. 2 of Mensinger to such that the wherein the controller is configured to calculate a color hue associated with the measured analyte reading, communicate the color hue to the display, wherein the controller is configured to change the hue of the adjustable light display based on the measured analyte reading, and wherein the measured analyte reading is not stored on the one or more processors, as taught by Mensinger ([0176]) to provide visual information to help monitor the blood glucose level. It is noted that the calculation of the expected minimum and expected maximum values by the sensor electronics (i.e., part of the controller) changes the hue of the adjustable light display based on the measured analyte reading, as the ranges determines the colors of the display. It is further noted that the display is in communication with the CGM module (i.e., part of the controller), however, the display does not comprise a memory or temporary storage to store data. Therefore, the method of modified Mensinger teaches wherein the measured analyte reading is not stored on the display.
Modified Mensinger does not teach that the adjustable light display is positioned in a housing separate from the controller.
Gak teaches a method of obtaining data pertaining to the health of a patient, and displaying the data on a monitor (i.e., adjustable display) based on a range of the data. Fig. 5 of Gak depicts monitor 14, which can adjust the color displayed based on a signal (i.e., calculated color hue) sent from the processor ([0047]). The monitor 14 can be located at a site separate from the patient and the input module and processor (i.e., separate from the controller. See par. [0040]), such as at a nurse’s station or outside a patient’s room in healthcare facility ([0050]).
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 Mensinger such that the adjustable display is positioned in a housing separate from the controller, as this configuration would allow for monitoring of the patient from different sites, as taught by Gak ([0050]).
The combination of Mensinger and Gak does not teach wherein the adjustable light display includes one or more processors.
Hoffman teaches a patient monitoring system wherein the system includes a remote display that can be located externally to the device that obtains the patient health information, such as at a nurse station. The remote display can include a wired or wireless connection, and may comprise a separate controller (a controller comprises a processing element defining at least one processor) that receives the data to be displayed ([0095]). The inclusion of the controller in the remote display enables the reception of data from the device that obtains the patient health information.
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 Mensinger and Gak such that the adjustable light display includes one or more processors, in order to enable the reception of data to the remote adjustable display, as taught by Hoffman ([0095]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mensinger, Gak, and Hoffman teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to flash the hue of the adjustable light display on and off responsive to the measured analyte reading being below a predetermined threshold (Mensinger, [0176-0177]; “If the user's blood glucose value continues to become increasingly low or high, the CGM module 208 produces additional outputs, such as increasing the intensity of the color and/or causing the text/background to flash. These additional outputs may be generated in response to the CGM module 208 comparing input EGV's to additional programmed threshold values.”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mensinger, Gak, and Hoffman teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to send a notification responsive to the measured analyte reading being below a predetermined threshold (See the rejection of claim 15, the increasing color intensity and flashing display is the analyte concentration becomes increasingly low, below programmed threshold values, are considered notifications).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mensinger, Gak, and Hoffman teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the measured analyte reading includes one of a blood glucose concentration (Mensinger, The method of Fig. 12 is based on blood glucose values (i.e., concentrations); See par. [0057]), cholesterol, a lipid count, a red blood cell count, a concentration of vitamins, or a concentration of minerals.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mensinger, Gak, and Hoffman teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to retrieve the measured analyte reading from the database at least once every 5 minutes (Mensinger, [0149]; At block B1214 the CGM module 208 stores the expected minimum and maximum BG values for later comparison (e.g., within the next 5 minutes, or other interval of time, prior to receipt of a next data packet from the sensor electronics)).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mensinger, Gak, and Hoffman teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to sync with the adjustable light display via a unique user code (Mensinger, [0107]; “With regard to pairing of the transmitter to the smartphone, pairing may be accomplished during a channel establishment process between the two devices. Establishing a channel may involve broadcasting a unique ID by one device and a search and acquisition of this ID by the other device.”). It is noted that the transmitter comprises the sensor electronics (i.e., controller) and the smartphone comprises the adjustable light display, therefore the unique ID is used to sync the adjustable display with the controller. However, the adjustable light display in the combination of Mensinger, Gak, and Hoffman is remote and wirelessly connected to the controller, and therefore a unique ID can facilitate channel establishment.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mensinger in view of Gak in view of Hoffman, as applied to claim 14, in view of Keroles.
The combination of Mensinger, Gak, and Hoffman teaches the system of claim 14, but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to modify a brightness of the hue of the adjustable light display based on a time of day.
Keroles teaches a system comprising a display for communicating physiological information (Figs. 1-2, display 5). Keroles teaches that features such as an ambient light sensor can be added to the system and can be used to adjust the brightness of the display based on the time of day. This adjustment of the brightness can prevent the disturbance of the user ([0068]).
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 the combination of Mensinger, Gak, and Hoffman to include an ambient light sensor and wherein the controller is configured to modify a brightness of the hue of the adjustable light display based on a time of day, to prevent the disturbance of the user, as taught by Keroles ([0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, entered 07/20/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are acknowledged. Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides improvements to usability and security compared to prior art user interfaces. The amendments to the claims positively recite the separate housing of the adjustable display, which facilitates the transmission and display of the color hue in a separate device. Claims 7 and 14 positively recite the display of a hue by the adjustable light display, and therefore realizes the improvements (in usability and privacy) and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 1 does not positively recite the display of a hue by the adjustable display, and therefore claim 1 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as the improvements are not realized without the display of the hue.
Applicant’s assertion regarding the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is acknowledged. This assertion is moot as it is based on amendments to the claims not entered at the time of the previous Office action. The newly presented limitations are rejected on new grounds above.
Conclusion
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
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
