Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/394,684

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANALYTE MONITORING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 22, 2023
Examiner
SHAH, JAY B
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Abbott Laboratories
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
206 granted / 367 resolved
-13.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
404
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§103
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§102
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 367 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. (US 2020/0237275 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Feldman, in view of Rule (US 2019/0336678 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Feldman teaches: A system for monitoring a plurality of analytes in a user, the system comprising: a sensor control device comprising a sensor (abstract), wherein at least a portion of the sensor is configured to be in fluid contact with a bodily fluid of the user, and wherein the sensor control device is configured to transmit data indicative of a plurality of analyte levels of the user (paragraph 0033), wherein the data indicative of the plurality of analyte levels includes data indicative of a first analyte level and data indicative of a second analyte level of the user, wherein the first analyte level is indicative of a first analyte, and wherein the second analyte level is indicative of a second analyte different from the first analyte (paragraph 0033); a reader device comprising: wireless communication circuitry configured to receive the data indicative of the plurality of analyte levels of the user (figure 1, paragraph 0029), one or more processors coupled with a memory, the memory storing an analyte monitoring application that (figure 1; paragraph 0029), when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to: output, based on the data indicative of the first analyte level and the data indicative of the second analyte level, a sensor results graphical user interface (GUI) (figure 9). Feldman does not explicitly mention comprising a first analyte section and a second analyte section, wherein the first analyte section comprises a first analyte card and a first analyte graph portion reflecting the data indicative of the first analyte level, and wherein the second analyte section comprises a second analyte card and a second analyte graph portion reflecting the data indicative of the second analyte level. Rule teaches a user interface with a first analyte section and a second analyte section, wherein the first analyte section comprises a first analyte card (element 2408) and a first analyte graph (element 2418) portion reflecting the data indicative of the first analyte level, and wherein the second analyte section comprises a second analyte card (element 2412) )and a second analyte graph portion (element 2432) reflecting the data indicative of the second analyte level (figure 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include a first analyte section and a second analyte section, wherein the first analyte section comprises a first analyte card and a first analyte graph portion reflecting the data indicative of the first analyte level, and wherein the second analyte section comprises a second analyte card and a second analyte graph portion reflecting the data indicative of the second analyte level in order to allow a user to easily see and interpret analyte values. Regarding Claim 3, Feldman in view of Rule teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the data indicative of the first analyte level comprises data indicative of a glucose level, wherein the data indicative of the second analyte level comprises data indicative of a ketone level (Feldman – abstract paragraph 0023). Regarding Claim 5, Feldman in view of Rule teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a glucose-ketone sensor (abstract; paragraph 0023). Regarding Claim 99, Feldman in view of Rule teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the second analyte card and the second analyte graph portion are displayed on the sensor results GUI, wherein the analyte monitoring application, when executed by the one or more processors, further causes the one or more processors to: display, on the second analyte graph portion, a banner notification comprising instructions, wherein the instructions relate to a high ketone level condition or an elevated ketone level condition, wherein the banner notification further comprises a background color indicative of the high ketone level condition or the elevated ketone level condition (Rule - figure 46; paragraph 0352). Claim(s) 6, 13, 18, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman, in view of Rule, further in view of Masciotti et al. (US 2020/0178860 A1), hereinafter Masciotti. Regarding Claim 6, Feldman in view of Rule teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the first analyte card comprises a text description (Rule - figure 25), a first current analyte level value (Rule - figure 25) but does not explicitly mention a first trend indicator associated with the data indicative of the first analyte level of the user. Masciotti teaches the use of a trend indicator as part of the analyte card (figure 8; arrow 1307). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include a first trend indicator associated with the data indicative of the first analyte level of the user for a better user experience. Regarding Claim 13, Feldman in view of Rule, in view of Masciotti teach: The system of claim 6, wherein the first analyte card further comprises a background color indicative of a condition associated with the data indicative of the first analyte level of the user (Rule - paragraph 0351-0352). Regarding Claim 18, Feldman in view of Rule teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the second analyte card comprises a text description (Rule - figure 25), a second current analyte level value (Rule - figure 25), but fails to mention a second trend indicator associated with the data indicative of the second analyte level of the user. Masciotti teaches the use of a trend indicator as part of the analyte card (figure 8; arrow 1307). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include a second trend indicator associated with the data indicative of the second analyte level of the user for a better user experience. Regarding Claim 25, Feldman in view of Rule, in view of Masciotti teach: The system of claim 18, wherein the second analyte card further comprises a background color indicative of a condition associated with the data indicative of the second analyte level of the user (Rule - paragraph 0351-0352). Claim(s) 30, 36, 49-56, 58-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman in view of Rule, further in view of Raisoni et al. (US 2018/0228408 A1), hereinafter Raisoni. Regarding Claim 30, Feldman, in view of Rule teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor results GUI is further configured to display the first analyte section in the first expanded view by default (Rule – figure 25 is default; paragraph 0305), but fail to mention wherein the first analyte section is configured to transition between a first collapsed view and a first expanded view. Raisoni teaches wherein the first analyte section is configured to transition between a first collapsed view and a first expanded view (transition from figure 12E to 14A and B; paragraph 0093). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include mention wherein the first analyte section is configured to transition between a first collapsed view and a first expanded view in order to declutter the user interface. Regarding Claim 36, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 30, wherein in the first expanded view, the first analyte section displays the first analyte card and the first analyte graph portion, and wherein in the first collapsed view, the first analyte section displays only the first analyte card (Raisoni - transition from figure 12E to 14A; paragraph 0093). Regarding Claim 49, Feldman in view of Rule teach: The system of claim 1, but do not mention wherein the first analyte section is configured to transition between a first collapsed view and a first expanded view, and wherein the second analyte section is configured to transition between a second collapsed view and a second expanded view. Raisoni teaches wherein an analyte section is configured to transition between a collapsed view and an expanded view (transition from figure 12E to 14A and B; paragraph 0093). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include mention wherein the first analyte section is configured to transition between a first collapsed view and a first expanded view, and wherein the second analyte section is configured to transition between a second collapsed view and a second expanded view in order to declutter the user interface. Regarding Claim 50, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 49, wherein the first analyte section is in the first expanded view and the second analyte section is in the second expanded view, and wherein the first analyte card, the first analyte graph portion, the second analyte card, and the second analyte graph portion are displayed on the sensor results GUI at a same time (Rule figure 25 in combination with Raisoni transition from figure 12E to 14A and B). Regarding Claim 51, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 49, wherein the first analyte section is in the first expanded view and the second analyte section is in the second collapsed view, and wherein the first analyte card, the first analyte graph portion, and the second analyte card are displayed on the sensor results GUI at a same time (Rule figure 25 in combination with Raisoni transition from figure 12E to 14A and B). Regarding Claim 52, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 49, wherein the first analyte section is in the first collapsed view and the second analyte section is in the second expanded view, and wherein the first analyte card, the second analyte card, and the second analyte graph portion are displayed on the sensor results GUI at a same time (Rule figure 25 in combination with Raisoni transition from figure 12E to 14A and B). Regarding Claim 53, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 49, wherein the first analyte section is in the collapsed view and the second analyte section is in the collapsed view, and wherein the first analyte card and the second analyte card are displayed on the sensor results GUI at a same time (Rule figure 25 in combination with Raisoni transition from figure 12E to 14A and B). Regarding Claim 54, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 49, wherein the first analyte section is a glucose section, wherein the first analyte card is a glucose card, wherein the first analyte graph portion is a glucose graph portion, and wherein the data indicative of a first analyte level is a data indicative of a glucose level (Feldman – abstract paragraph 0023). Regarding Claim 55, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 54, wherein the second analyte section is a ketone section, wherein the second analyte card is a ketone card, wherein the second analyte graph portion is a ketone graph portion, and wherein the data indicative of a second analyte level is a data indicative of a ketone level (Feldman – abstract paragraph 0023). Regarding Claim 56, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 54. Feldman does not mention wherein the data indicative of the glucose level indicates a target glucose threshold range, a high glucose threshold range, or a low glucose threshold range, and wherein the sensor results GUI is configured to display the glucose section in the first expanded view. Rule teaches mention wherein the data indicative of the glucose level indicates a target glucose threshold range, a high glucose threshold range, or a low glucose threshold range, and wherein the sensor results GUI is configured to display the glucose section in the first expanded view (figure 49; paragraph 0356). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system wherein the data indicative of the glucose level indicates a target glucose threshold range, a high glucose threshold range, or a low glucose threshold range, and wherein the sensor results GUI is configured to display the glucose section in the first expanded view to allow a user to see where the current analyte level is in relation to thresholds/standards. Regarding Claim 58, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 55, wherein the data indicative of the ketone level indicates a normal ketone threshold range, and wherein the sensor results GUI is configured to display the ketone section in the second collapsed view (Rule - paragraph 0356; Raisoni – Figures 12-14). Regarding Claim 59, Feldman, in view of Rule in view of Raisoni teach: The system of claim 58, wherein in the second collapsed view, the ketone section only displays the ketone card, and wherein the ketone card comprises a text description indicating the normal ketone threshold range (Raisoni – Figures 12). Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman in view of Rule, further in view of Hamilton (US 2007/0255588 A1). Regarding Claim 40. Feldman, in view of Rule teach: The system of claim 1, but fail to mention wherein the second analyte section is configured to transition between a second collapsed view and a second expanded view in response to the data indicative of the second analyte level reaching a predetermined threshold. Hamilton teaches that a user interface display can expand from a collapsed form in response to a user metric reaching a threshold as a visual indicator (paragraph 0065-0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system wherein the second analyte section is configured to transition between a second collapsed view and a second expanded view in response to the data indicative of the second analyte level reaching a predetermined threshold in order to draw attention to the display. Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman in view of Rule, further in view of Hamilton, further in view of Raisoni. Regarding Claim 45, Feldman in view of Rule, further in view of Hamilton teach: The system of claim 40, but do not mention wherein in the second expanded view, the second analyte section displays the second analyte card and the second analyte graph portion, wherein in the second collapsed view, the second analyte section displays only the second analyte card. Raisoni teaches wherein the analyte section is configured to transition between a collapsed view and an expanded view, wherein in the expanded view, the analyte section displays the analyte card and the analyte graph portion, and wherein in the collapsed view, the analyte section displays only the analyte card (Raisoni - transition from figure 12E to 14A; paragraph 0093). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include wherein in the second expanded view, the second analyte section displays the second analyte card and the second analyte graph portion, wherein in the second collapsed view, the second analyte section displays only the second analyte card in order to declutter the user interface. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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. JAY SHAH Primary Examiner Art Unit 3791 /JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594389
NON-INVASIVE ESTIMATION OF HEMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS DURING MECHANICAL VENTILATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594009
SYSTEM FOR SCREENING AND DIAGNOSIS OF DIABETES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588832
A MODULAR MOUTHPIECE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12565175
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF INTOXICATING SUBSTANCE IN A BREATH SAMPLE FACILITATED BY A USER INTERACTION SCHEME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551111
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DYNAMIC PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTIC REGION CAPTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+7.6%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 367 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month