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 .
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.
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 32-38, 130-136, and 144-150 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 32-38, 130-136, and 144-150 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system (claims 144-150) and a method (claims 32-38 and 130-136).
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 32, 130, and 144, the recited steps are directed mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Specifically from claim 32:
receiving, from at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of the user and configured to detect at least two analytes in exhaled breath of the user, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
processing the information to determine a presence of a first analyte of the at least two analytes, a presence of the second analyte of the at least two analytes, or a combination thereof in the exhaled breadth; and
generating an alert for the potential of the drug interaction upon determining the presence of the first analyte and the presence of the second analyte in the exhaled breath.
Specifically from claim 130:
receiving, from at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of a user and configured to detect one or more analytes in exhaled breath of the user, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
processing the information to determine which of the one or more analytes are present in the exhaled breadth; and
determining a discrepancy in one or more medications taken by the user based on a discrepancy between the one or more analytes present in the exhaled breath and one or more analytes associated with the one or more medications.
Specifically from claim 144:
at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of the user, the at least one sensor configured to detect at least two analytes in exhaled breath of the user;
memory containing machine-readable instructions; and
a control system having one or more processors in communication with the memory, the control system configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to:
receive, from the at least one sensor, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
process the information to determine a presence of a first analyte of the at least two analytes, a presence of the second analyte of the at least two analytes, or a combination thereof in the exhaled breadth; and
generate an alert for the potential of the drug interaction upon determining the presence of the first analyte and the presence of the second analyte in the exhaled breath
These underlined limitations describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 32, 130, and 144 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for performing the abstract ideas merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for performing the abstract ideas
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer to perform the abstract ideas. The claims do not apply the obtained measurements to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Step 2B
The additional elements are identified as follows: see the bolded elements above reproduced here (“at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of the user and configured to detect at least two analytes in exhaled breath of the user” in claim 32, at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of a user and configured to detect one or more analytes in exhaled breath of the user” in claim 130, “at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of the user, the at least one sensor configured to detect at least two analytes in exhaled breath of the user; memory containing machine-readable instructions; and a control system having one or more processors in communication with the memory, the control system configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to:“ in claim 144), “a first sensor” and “a second sensor” in claims 38 and 150, “electronic medical records” in claim 131.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant's specification (Paragraphs 0066 and 0080) which discloses that the processor and memory comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
Applicant's specification (Paragraphs 0005) which discloses that the sensors are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 34-37, 136, 146-149 is additional data output
Claims 38, 131, 150 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art
Claims 33-37, 131-136, and 145-149 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 32-38 and 144-150 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melker et al. (US 2007/0167853).
Regarding claim 32, Melker teaches a method for alerting a user of a potential for a drug interaction (Abstract; Paragraph 0002) comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of the user and configured to detect at least two analytes in exhaled breath of the user, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0049-0051 and 0089);
processing the information to determine a presence of a first analyte of the at least two analytes, a presence of the second analyte of the at least two analytes, or a combination thereof in the exhaled breadth (Paragraphs 0142-0143 and 0146-0148); and
generating an alert for the potential of the drug interaction upon determining the presence of the first analyte and the presence of the second analyte in the exhaled breath (Paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 33, Melker teaches further comprising processing the information to determine a concentration of the first analyte of the at least two analytes, a concentration of the second analyte of the at least two analytes, or a combination thereof in the exhaled breadth upon determining the presence of the first analyte and the presence of the second analyte in the exhaled breath (Paragraphs 0144-0148).
Regarding claim 34, Melker teaches further comprising: comparing the concentration of the first analyte, the concentration of the second analyte, or a combination thereof to one or more thresholds; and generating the alert for the potential of the drug interaction based on the comparison (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 35, Melker teaches further comprising generating the alert upon the comparison indicating that the concentration of the first analyte, the concentration of the second analyte, or a combination thereof exceed at least one threshold of the one or more thresholds (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 36, Melker teaches further comprising generating the alert upon the comparison indicating that the concentration of the first analyte and the concentration of the second analyte exceed at least one threshold of the one or more thresholds (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 37, Melker teaches further comprising generating the alert upon the comparison indicating that the concentration of the first analyte and the concentration of the second analyte exceed respective thresholds of the one or more thresholds (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 38, Melker teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, the first sensor being configured to detect the first analyte of the at least two analytes and the second sensor being configured to detect the second analyte of the at least two analytes (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0049-0051 and 0089 and 0142).
Regarding claim 144, Melker teaches a system for alerting a user of a potential for a drug interaction (Abstract; Paragraph 0002) comprising:
at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of the user, the at least one sensor configured to detect at least two analytes in exhaled breath of the user (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0049-0051 and 0089);
memory containing machine-readable instructions (Paragraph 0146); and
a control system having one or more processors in communication with the memory, the control system configured to execute the machine-readable instructions (Paragraph 0146) to:
receive, from the at least one sensor, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0049-0051 and 0089);
process the information to determine a presence of a first analyte of the at least two analytes, a presence of the second analyte of the at least two analytes, or a combination thereof in the exhaled breadth (Paragraphs 0142-0143 and 0146-0148); and
generate an alert for the potential of the drug interaction upon determining the presence of the first analyte and the presence of the second analyte in the exhaled breath (Paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 145, Melker teaches wherein the control system is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to process the information to determine a concentration of the first analyte of the at least two analytes, a concentration of the second analyte of the at least two analytes, or a combination thereof in the exhaled breadth upon determining the presence of the first analyte and the presence of the second analyte in the exhaled breath (Paragraphs 0144-0148).
Regarding claim 146, Melker teaches wherein the control system is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to: compare the concentration of the first analyte, the concentration of the second analyte, or a combination thereof to one or more thresholds; and generate the alert for the potential of the drug interaction based on the comparison (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 147, Melker teaches wherein the control system is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to generate the alert upon the comparison indicating that the concentration of the first analyte, the concentration of the second analyte, or a combination thereof exceed at least one threshold of the one or more thresholds (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 148, Melker teaches wherein the control system is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to generate the alert upon the comparison indicating that the concentration of the first analyte and the concentration of the second analyte exceed at least one threshold of the one or more thresholds (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 149, Melker teaches wherein the control system is configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to generate the alert upon the comparison indicating that the concentration of the first analyte and the concentration of the second analyte exceed respective thresholds of the one or more thresholds (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 150, Melker teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, the first sensor being configured to detect the first analyte of the at least two analytes and the second sensor being configured to detect the second analyte of the at least two analytes (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0049-0051 and 0089 and 0142).
Claim(s) 130 and 134-135 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dennis et al. (US 2017/0074857).
Regarding claim 130, Dennis teaches a method for verifying medication taken by a user (Abstract; Paragraph 0045) comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of a user and configured to detect one or more analytes in exhaled breath of the user, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user (Paragraphs 0045 and 0047);
processing the information to determine which of the one or more analytes are present in the exhaled breadth (Paragraphs 0045 and 0048); and
determining a discrepancy in one or more medications taken by the user based on a discrepancy between the one or more analytes present in the exhaled breath and one or more analytes associated with the one or more medications (Paragraph 0045 and 0138 and 0167).
Regarding claim 134, Dennis teaches further comprising determining the one or more medications taken by the user by determining a presence of one or more analytes associated with the one or more medications for a predefined number of samplings over a period of time (Paragraphs 0045 and 0154 and 0174-0175).
Regarding claim 135, Dennis teaches wherein the discrepancy between the one or more analytes present in the exhaled breath and the one or more analytes associated with the one or more medications is a lack of at least one analyte of the one or more analytes present in the exhaled breath (Paragraph 0174-0175).
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.
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) 131 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis et al. (US 2017/0074857) in view of Jenkins (US 2016/0357924).
Regarding claim 131, Dennis is silent on the electronics medical records. Jenkins teaches further comprising determining the one or more medications taken by the user by accessing electronic medical records associated with the user listing the one or more medications (Paragraphs 0017 and 0132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dennis with Jenkins because electronic medical records are conventional in the art and accessing them would be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art as a conventional routine procedure thus yielding predictable results and because it enables managing risk of medication dependence (Paragraphs 0017-0018 of Jenkins).
Claim(s) 132-133 and 136 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis et al. (US 2017/0074857) in view of Bangera et al. (US Patent No. 8797167).
Regarding claim 132, Dennis is silent on the images. Bangera teaches further comprising: receiving one or more images of the one or more medications taken by the user, one or more containers of the one or more medications, or a combination thereof; and processing the one or more images to determine the one or more medications taken by the user (Column 44, Lines 1-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dennis with Bangera because it ensures a full record is captured of the patient’s usage (Column 7, Line 66-Column 8, Line 8 of Bangera).
Regarding claim 133, Dennis is silent on the images. Bangera teaches wherein the processing is based, at least in part, on one or more colors of the one or more medications, one or more indicia on the one or more medications, one or more shapes of the one or more medications, one or more indicia on the one or more containers, or a combination (Column 44, Lines 1-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dennis with Bangera because it ensures a full record is captured of the patient’s usage (Column 7, Line 66-Column 8, Line 8 of Bangera).
Regarding claim 136, Dennis is silent on the alerting of a third party. Bangera teaches further comprising providing an alert to a third party regarding the discrepancy after a predefined number of samplings associated with the discrepancy (Column 8, Lines 9-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dennis with Bangera because it enables better intervention in case of a medical emergency and can help patients who are confused/forgetful (Column 8, Lines 9-28 of Bangera).
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 32-38, 130-136, and 144-150 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11918344. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see chart below. The difference between the rejected claims of the instant application and patented claims of the patent lies in the fact that the patented claims are more specific. Thus, the invention of patented claims is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of rejected claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since rejected claims are anticipated by patented claims, it is not patentably distinct from patented claims.
Instant Application 18/586,373
Conflicting US Patent No. 11918344
32. (Original) A method for alerting a user of a potential for a drug interaction comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of the user and configured to detect at least two analytes in exhaled breath of the user, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
processing the information to determine a presence of a first analyte of the at least two analytes, a presence of the second analyte of the at least two analytes, or a combination thereof in the exhaled breadth; and
generating an alert for the potential of the drug interaction upon determining the presence of the first analyte and the presence of the second analyte in the exhaled breath.
1. A method for adjusting dosage of an agent comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of a user and configured to detect analytes in exhaled breath of the user, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
processing the information to determine a concentration of a first analyte and an absence of a second analyte in the exhaled breath;
determining an adjustment to a delivery device configured to deliver the agent to the user based, at least in part, on the concentration of the first analyte,
wherein the information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user is from multiple discrete measurements during multiple discrete sessions of the at least one sensor detecting the analytes in the exhaled breath of the user;
providing one or more visual instructions on a display that instruct the user on how to operate the delivery device to implement the determined adjustment;
determining one or more medications taken by the user by accessing electronic medical records at a remote system associated with the user listing the one or more medications; and
determining a discrepancy in the one or more medications taken by the user based on the absence of the second analyte and one or more analytes associated with the one or more medications;
causing a transmission of a first message to the remote system based on the determination of the discrepancy in the one or more medications;
receiving, from the remote system, a confirmation receipt for the first message; and
verifying authenticity of the confirmation receipt based, at least in part, on a key transmitted with the confirmation receipt.
144. (Original) A system for alerting a user of a potential for a drug interaction comprising:
at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of the user, the at least one sensor configured to detect at least two analytes in exhaled breath of the user;
memory containing machine-readable instructions; and
a control system having one or more processors in communication with the memory, the control system configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to:
receive, from the at least one sensor, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
process the information to determine a presence of a first analyte of the at least two analytes, a presence of the second analyte of the at least two analytes, or a combination thereof in the exhaled breadth; and
generate an alert for the potential of the drug interaction upon determining the presence of the first analyte and the presence of the second analyte in the exhaled breath.
12. A system for adjusting dosage of an agent comprising:
at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of a user, the at least one sensor configured to detect analytes in exhaled breath of the user;
a display configured to present images to the user;
memory containing machine-readable instructions; and
a control system having one or more processors in communication with the memory, the control system configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to:
receive, from the at least one sensor, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
process the information to determine a concentration of a first analyte and an absence of a second analyte in the exhaled breath;
determine an adjustment to a delivery device configured to deliver the agent to the user based, at least in part, on the concentration of the first analyte,
wherein the information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user is from multiple discrete measurements during multiple discrete sessions of the at least one sensor detecting the analytes in the exhaled breath of the user;
provide one or more visual instructions on a display that instruct the user on how to operate the delivery device to implement the determined adjustment;
determining one or more medications taken by the user by accessing electronic medical records at a remote system associated with the user listing the one or more medications; and
determining a discrepancy in the one or more medications taken by the user based on the absence of the second analyte and one or more analytes associated with the one or more medications;
causing a transmission of a first message to the remote system based on the determination of the discrepancy in the one or more medications;
receiving, from the remote system, confirmation of receipt of the first message; and
verifying authenticity of the confirmation based, at least in part, on a key transmitted with the confirmation.
130. (Original) A method for verifying medication taken by a user comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of a user and configured to detect one or more analytes in exhaled breath of the user, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
processing the information to determine which of the one or more analytes are present in the exhaled breadth; and
determining a discrepancy in one or more medications taken by the user based on a discrepancy between the one or more analytes present in the exhaled breath and one or more analytes associated with the one or more medications.
1. A method for adjusting dosage of an agent comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor positioned in an exhalation path of a user and configured to detect analytes in exhaled breath of the user, information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user;
processing the information to determine a concentration of a first analyte and an absence of a second analyte in the exhaled breath;
determining an adjustment to a delivery device configured to deliver the agent to the user based, at least in part, on the concentration of the first analyte,
wherein the information generated based on the exhaled breath of the user is from multiple discrete measurements during multiple discrete sessions of the at least one sensor detecting the analytes in the exhaled breath of the user;
providing one or more visual instructions on a display that instruct the user on how to operate the delivery device to implement the determined adjustment;
determining one or more medications taken by the user by accessing electronic medical records at a remote system associated with the user listing the one or more medications; and
determining a discrepancy in the one or more medications taken by the user based on the absence of the second analyte and one or more analytes associated with the one or more medications;
causing a transmission of a first message to the remote system based on the determination of the discrepancy in the one or more medications;
receiving, from the remote system, a confirmation receipt for the first message; and
verifying authenticity of the confirmation receipt based, at least in part, on a key transmitted with the confirmation receipt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights