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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 1 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that some of the steps in invention II cannot be practiced by hand, and that invention III is not mutually exclusive from invention I. This is not found persuasive because, regarding invention II, as at least the step of determining can be performed by hand, that invention can be practiced using a different device than that of invention I, and regarding invention III, the two inventions are mutually exclusive in how they are configured to charge the capacitor and sensor electronics module.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1 May 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites an additional feature of the system, and should be clearly recited as such – “and further configured to transfer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a battery configured to provide energy to the sensor electronics module and the analyte sensor” but also that “the battery is further configured to charge the capacitor with the energy” and “the capacitor is configured to provide the energy to the sensor electronics module”. It appears that the battery is only indirectly configured to provide energy to the sensor electronics module; further, as “the energy” is provided to the capacitor, it is not clear how any other energy might be provided to the analyte sensor. Similarly, as “the energy” is provided by the battery to the capacitor, this would contradict any energy being provided by the battery to the sensor electronics. Clarification is required.
Further, claim 5 recites that “the sensor electronics module is configured to receive the energy from the capacitor instead of the energy from the battery”. It is unclear if this is a redundant recitation of what is already occurring in claim 1, as “the energy” is provided from the capacitor to the electronics module, or if the intent is for some energy to be provided form the battery to the electronics module in addition to “the energy” which is provided by the battery; however, if the latter, then claim 5 is indefinite as it negates and redefines the device as configured in claim 1. The same issue is found in claim 6. Clarification is required.
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) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reggiardo (US 2010/0274108).
Regarding claim 1, Reggiardo discloses an analyte sensor system, comprising:
an analyte sensor configured to generate a sensor signal representative of an analyte concentration of a host (element 101; paragraph [0027]);
a sensor electronics module (element 102) comprising:
one or more processors configured to determine an estimated analyte concentration based on the sensor signal (element 204); and
a communication circuit configured to transmit a wireless signal indicative of the estimated analyte concentration (element 206);
a battery configured to provide energy to the sensor electronics module and the analyte sensor (element 502; paragraph [0058]); and
a capacitor coupled to the battery (element 501), wherein:
the battery is further configured to charge the capacitor with the energy (paragraph [0052]); and
the capacitor is configured to provide the energy to the sensor electronics module (paragraph [0052]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 2, Reggiardo further discloses that the capacitor is a supercapacitor (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Reggiardo further discloses that the capacitor is configured to provide the energy to the sensor electronics module during a high-load period (paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0054]), .
Regarding claim 4, Reggiardo further discloses that the capacitor is coupled in parallel with the battery (paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Reggiardo further discloses that the sensor electronics module is configured to receive the energy from the capacitor instead of the energy from the battery (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Reggiardo further discloses that the sensor electronics module is configured to receive the energy from the capacitor, instead of the energy from the battery, for transmission of the wireless signal by the communication circuit (paragraphs [0052]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Reggiardo further discloses that the capacitor is configured to extend an operational life of the battery by reducing strain on the battery during a high-load period (paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0054]).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reggiardo in view of Haller (US 2007/0123938).
Regarding claim 7, Reggiardo does not disclose that the capacitor is configured to receive the energy from the battery for short term storage and configured to transfer the energy to the battery for long term storage. Haller teaches a system configured to interact with a host comprising an electronics module (element 904), a battery (paragraph [0071]), and a capacitor (element 902), where the capacitor is configured to be charged by the battery and provide power to the electronics module (paragraph [0071], “the electronic subassembly can use the charge stored on the capacitor to power the stimulator during times of peak power demand”) and also to transfer the energy back to the battery for “long term” storage (paragraph [0071], “use the charge stored on the capacitor to recharge the rechargeable battery”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Reggiardo with the capacitor configured to transfer energy back to the battery for “long term” storage, as taught by Haller, in order to more efficiently conserve power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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.
/KAREN E TOTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights