DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the response filed 8 September 2024, on an application filed 4 January 2024, which claims foreign priority to an application filed 5 January 2023.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 3, 4, 10 and 11 have been canceled.
Claims 16 and 17 have been added by amendment.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 12-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 January 2024, 16 January 2024, 10 December 2024 and 18 February 2025 have been considered by the Office to the extent indicated.
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 1, 2, 5-9 and 12-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the following limitation: wherein the mealtime is presented when the user's blood sugar level approaches a lower limit of a recommended blood sugar level range. However, the specification at paragraph 37 only provides support for a time for a meal when the user’s blood sugar level approaches the lower limit, not wherein the mealtime is presented when the user's blood sugar level approaches a lower limit of a recommended blood sugar level range. Further, Applicant’s claimed limitation would not make sense because if the mealtime is not even presented to the user until their blood sugar has already approached the lower limit, it would be too late to properly maintain their blood sugar appropriately considering the time it takes to following the mealplan, etc. Therefore, one skilled in the art of healthcare intervention, upon reading the specification, would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed inventions on the day the application was filed.
To the extent that other claims rely on claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112 and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims they rely on, those other claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims they rely on. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-9 and 12-17 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, 2, 5-9 and 12-17 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 16 are drawn to a processing system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 8, 9, 12-14 and 17 are drawn to a processing method performed by at least one processor, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 15 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A processing system comprising:
a memory for storing programs; and
a processor for executing the programs to perform operations comprising:
acquiring meal data related to meals consumed by a user;
acquiring exercise data related to exercise performed by the user;
generating prediction data predicting fluctuations in the user's blood sugar level based on the meal data and the exercise data;
acquiring schedule information indicating the user's meal schedule, wherein the scheduled meal data is acquired based on the schedule information, and the prediction data predicting fluctuations in the user's blood sugar level is generated based at least in part on the scheduled meal data;
presenting a mealtime and exercise time and exercise content based on the prediction data, wherein the mealtime is presented when the user's blood sugar level approaches a lower limit of a recommended blood sugar level range, and the exercise time and the exercise content are presented when the user's blood sugar level exceeds an upper limit of the recommended blood sugar level range.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea 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 step of acquiring a patient’s data to generate prediction of fluctuation in blood sugar and determine corresponding meal and/or exercise for the patient to manage their glucose levels.), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claims 8 and 15 are identical as the abstract idea for claims 1, because the only difference between claims 1, 8 and 15 is that claim 1 recites a system, whereas claim 8 recites a method and claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16 and 17 include other limitations, for example claims
2-7, 9-14, 16 and 17 gathers, presents and/or predicts data, but these only serve to further 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. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16 and 17 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16 and 17 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the various units and the structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph 29 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language limiting the data to various patient data types, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16 and 17 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the various units in claims 2-4) and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 8 and 15 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), 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 insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Paragraph 29 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the one or more processors) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data ) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16 and 17 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the various units in claims 2-4), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
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 there 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, 2, 5-9 and 12-17 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mohammed et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2021/0050089 A1), hereinafter Mohammed, further in view of Stocker et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2006/0272652 A1), hereinafter Stocker.
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, Mohammed discloses a processing method performed by at least one processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute, and a processing system (Mohammed, Figs. 1-3.) comprising:
a memory for storing programs; and
a processor for executing the programs to perform operations comprising:
acquiring meal data related to meals consumed by a user (Mohammed receives nutrition biosignal data of the patient, see paragraphs 48, 57, 63, 65 and Table I on pages 7-13, and Fig. 13E-13F.);
acquiring exercise data related to exercise performed by the user (Input biosignal data includes exercise data, see Mohammed paragraph 55, 63 and Table I on pages 7-13.);
generating prediction data predicting fluctuations in the user's blood sugar level based on the meal data and the exercise data (Mohammed, paragraphs 9, 32, 50, 68, 133, 136.);
… the prediction data predicting fluctuations in the user's blood sugar level is generated based at least in part on the scheduled meal data (Mohammed, paragraphs 9, 32, 50, 68, 133, 136, note Mohammed generates a meal schedule for the patient.);
presenting a mealtime and exercise time and exercise content based on the prediction data, wherein the mealtime is presented when the user's blood sugar level approaches a lower limit of a recommended blood sugar level range, and the exercise time and the exercise content are presented when the user's blood sugar level exceeds an upper limit of the recommended blood sugar level range (Mohammed outputs recommendations to the patient based on the prediction, including specific foods to be eaten at specific times, see paragraph 8, 51, 81, 83, 88, 174, 183 and 186, and Fig. 13G; patient device of Fig. 1 #115 is a presentation unit. Mohammed, paragraph 8: “For example, the patent health management platform may generate a personalized recommendation including a personalized nutrition plan, a medication plan, and an exercise and sleep regimen. The recommendations can additionally be time-specific, including recommendations to perform specific actions at particular time points”. Mohammed discloses setting mealtimes when the user’s blood level is predicted to approach a lower limit, and also discloses exercise times and content presented based on the user’s blood sugar predicted to exceed an upper limit, see paragraphs 84 and 90. The Office notes that it is old and well known in the blood sugar monitoring arts to recommend mealtimes and exercise to a user based on their blood sugar levels approach a particular value.).
Mohammed fails to explicitly disclose acquiring schedule information indicating the user's meal schedule, wherein the scheduled meal data is acquired based on the schedule information.
Stocker teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide acquisition of meal schedule information that is utilized to predict future glucose levels in order to a system that considers planned meals for planning future bolus shots for a patient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the personalized treatment platform for managing the metabolic health of a patient of Mohammed to include acquisition of meal schedule information that is utilized to predict future glucose levels, as taught by Stocker, in order to arrive at personalized treatment platform for managing the metabolic health of a patient that considers planned meals for planning future bolus shots for a patient.
Both Mohammed and Stocker are directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data and specifically to the monitoring of patient glucose levels. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 2, 7, 9 and 14, Mohammed/Stocker discloses claims 1 and 8, discussed above. Mohammed also discloses:
2,9. wherein presenting further comprises presenting a meal menu based on the prediction data (Mohammed outputs recommendations to the patient based on the prediction, including specific foods to be eaten at specific times, see paragraph 8, 51, 81, 83, 88, 174, 183 and 186, and Fig. 13G; patient device of Fig. 1 #115 is a presentation unit.);
7,14. wherein user information about the user is acquired, and the blood sugar level is predicted using a personalized prediction model based on the user information (Mohammed receives nutrition biosignal data of the patient, see paragraphs 48, 57, 63, 65 and Table I on pages 7-13, and Fig. 13E-13F.).
As per claims 5, 6, 12 and 13, Mohammed/Stocker discloses claims 1 and 8, discussed above. Mohammed/Stocker also discloses:
5,12. wherein schedule information indicating the user's schedule is acquired, and an additional plan to be added to free time in the schedule information is presented based on the prediction data (Mohammed, paragraph 81. Stocker discloses acquiring user schedule information, as shown above.); and
6,13. wherein schedule information indicating the user's schedule is acquired and the schedule is adjusted based on the prediction data (Mohammed, paragraph 81. Stocker discloses acquiring user schedule information, as shown above.).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mohammed/Stocker, further in view of Kakkar et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2024/0120104 A1), hereinafter Kakkar.
As per claims 16 and 17, Mohammed/Stocker discloses claims 1 and 8, discussed above. Mohammed fails to explicitly disclose wherein the schedule information includes meeting, works or travel, and the operations include suggesting a rescheduling of a meeting time or a cancellation of the meeting based on the mealtime.
Kakkar teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the schedule information includes meeting, works or travel, and the operations include suggesting a rescheduling of a meeting time or a cancellation of the meeting based on the mealtime (Kakkar, paragraphs 26, 30, 86 and 87.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the personalized treatment platform for managing the metabolic health of a patient of Mohammed to include acquisition of appointment schedule information and suggesting a rescheduling, as taught by Stocker, in order to arrive at personalized treatment platform for managing the metabolic health of a patient that considers planned meals for planning future bolus shots for a patient.
Both Mohammed and Stocker are directed to the electronic processing of patient healthcare data and specifically to the monitoring of patient glucose levels. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8 September 2025 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the outstanding 112(b) rejections due to the removal of limitations and deletion of claims.
The Office agrees and has removed the contested rejections.
Applicant’s arguments filed 8 September 2025 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and rather, “the claimed features provide a technological solution to the problem of providing appropriate timings of meals in order to avoid significant fluctuations in blood sugar levels by providing presentations to suppress fluctuations in a blood sugar level.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the statutory rejection of the claims above, where the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Th MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(11) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Office submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to predict and manage their blood glucose levels. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to predict and manage their blood glucose levels, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant’s claim is confined to a general-purpose computer and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i) describing an example of an improvement to another technology where the abstract idea implemented on a computer improved the claimed additional element of a rubber molding machine).
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the claims as amended.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the new rejection of the claims issued above, where the claims are rejected over Mohammed in view of Stocker.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Mohammed, Kakkar and Stocker, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Action (28 July 20225), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
3 October 2025