DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 10/11/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
Regarding claims 1-20 the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites “A multisensory device, comprising: two or more sensors in contact with a channel, each sensor configured to output a corresponding level of an analyte in a sample in the channel; a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors, individually or in combination, configured to: receive a first input signal from a first sensor of the two or more sensors indicating a level of a first analyte; receive a second input signal from a second sensor of the two or more sensors indicating a level of a second analyte; estimate the level of the second analyte based on a trace of the first input signal; and determine whether the level of the second analyte measured by the second sensor is comparable to the estimated level of the second analyte; and output an indication of the level of each of the first analyte and the second analyte.”
This falls into a mental process grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of receiving a first input signal from a first sensor of the two or more sensors indicating a level of a first analyte is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step of receiving a second input signal from a second sensor of the two or more sensors indicating a level of a second analyte is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step of estimating the level of the second analyte based on a trace of the first input signal is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining whether the level of the second analyte measured by the second sensor is comparable to the estimated level of the second analyte is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of outputting an indication of the level of each of the first analyte and the second analyte is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data presentation).
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a processor and memory for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Likewise, the inclusion of a first and second sensor (generic sensors) for measuring data is merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which also does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a processor and memory and generic sensors for data collection are claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing and the inclusion of a generic optical sensor for gathering data (merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering), does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the claimed sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The following examples show that the generic optical sensor is well understood, routine, and conventional activity: US 20050143635 A1 (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0121]), US 20090143659 (paragraph [0289], [0302], [0734]) A1, and US 20140005505 A1 (paragraph [0042], [0043], [0190])
Regarding dependent claims 12-20, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 1 is a parallel method claim to that of claim 11, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Conclusion
Regarding claims 1 and 11, and claims dependent thereof, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101, but provide subject matter not found in the prior art search.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, US 20050143635 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kamath”) a glucose sensing device, teaches a method of analyzing a sample (abstract), comprising:
receiving measurements from two or more sensors in contact with a solution including two or more analytes, wherein each of the two or more sensors is configured to output a level of a corresponding analyte (paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0121]); and
determining, based on a trace of the level of a first analyte, whether a measurement of the first analyte is limited due to a level of a second analyte (paragraph [0138]-[140]).
However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “estimating a level of the second analyte based on whether the measurement of the first analyte is limited; and determining whether the level of the second analyte measured by a second sensor is comparable to the estimated level of the second analyte” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/Examiner, Art Unit 3791