DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 4/20/2026.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-14 &17-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 15-16 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. An electronic device comprising:
a blood glucose sensor configured to generate a blood glucose value at least by measuring a blood glucose level of a user;
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determine a type of behavior performed by the user when a blood glucose value is measured;
generate logs by associating the type of behavior and blood glucose value of the user obtained via the blood glucose sensor while the behavior is performed,
determine a target event related to the type of behavior based on a target blood glucose value of the user obtained through the blood glucose sensor and the logs, and
generate a message comprising a suggestion of a target behavior related to the type of behavior to improve blood glucose values after determination of the target event; and
output the message to the user.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because sending healthcare data from various parties, detecting events, generating and sending a notification are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 15 & 17 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-14, 16, & 18-20 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2-5, 8-9, & 19-20 recite determining behavior information based on input data and generating logs; Claim 7 recites setting blood glucose values for a user; Claim 10 recites biometric information; Claims 11-13 recite determining target events. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 15 & 17, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. An electronic device comprising:
a blood glucose sensor configured to generate a blood glucose value at least by measuring a blood glucose level of a user;
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determine a type of behavior performed by the user when a blood glucose value is measured;
generate logs by associating the type of behavior and blood glucose value of the user obtained via the blood glucose sensor while the behavior is performed,
determine a target event related to the type of behavior based on a target blood glucose value of the user obtained through the blood glucose sensor and the logs, and
generate a message comprising a suggestion of a target behavior related to the type of behavior to improve blood glucose values after determination of the target event; and
output the message to the user.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the electronic device, processor, memory; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of blood glucose sensor generating blood glucose values, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the steps of the at least one abstract idea are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 15 & 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 3, 4, 9, & 20: These claims recite various types of sensors receiving sensor data and thus do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 14: These claims recite the electronic device is a wearable device and thus do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 18: These claims call for outputting messages to other devices and therefore merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., receiving and transmitting data)(see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and conventional activities as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the electronic device, processor, memory; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation of blood glucose sensor generating blood glucose values, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the steps of the at least one abstract idea are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of outputting messages to other devices which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined them to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, & 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20200170522) in view of Hayter (US20180199890).
As per claim 1, Kim teaches an electronic device comprising:
a blood glucose sensor configured to generate a blood glucose value at least by measuring a blood glucose level of a user (para. 60: sensor collects blood glucose values);
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (para. 9: processor); and
memory (para. 9: memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
generate logs of the user obtained via the blood glucose sensor while the behavior is performed (para. 96-97: data stored using blood glucose values obtained),
determine a target event obtained through the blood glucose sensor and the logs (para. 90-92: event detected), and
generate a message comprising a suggestion of a target behavior to improve blood glucose values (para. 92: user interface outputs message to user with instructions for event); and
output the message to the user (para. 92: user interface outputs message to user with instructions for event).
Kim does not expressly teach determine a type of behavior performed by the user when a blood glucose value is measured;
generate logs by associating the type of behavior and blood glucose value of the user obtained via the blood glucose sensor while the behavior is performed,
determine a target event related to the type of behavior based on a target blood glucose value of the user obtained through the blood glucose sensor and the logs, and
generate a message comprising a suggestion of a target behavior related to the type of behavior to improve blood glucose values after determination of the target event.
Hayter, however, teaches to perform dynamic glucose response pattern recognition based on glucose metrics that characterize the impact of a particular activity or event for a specific user or a patient (para. 40). The monitored parameter data is stored for additional analysis (para. 29). Hayter teaches to determining that a specific event may occur based on a specific activity type using the user’s glucose level data (para. 52). Hayter also teaches to notifying the user of a target event and providing a recommendation to the user (para. 5, 8, 46).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Hayter with Kim based on the motivation of identify the impact of daily activities such as exercise, medication administration, meal consumption and so forth on glucose level fluctuation and provide actionable, personalized health related information to tightly control glycemic variations (Hayter – para. 4).
As per claim 2, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 1. Kim teaches wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
obtain a first blood glucose value at a first time through the blood glucose sensor (para. 90: blood glucose values obtained at various times),
obtain a second blood glucose value at a second time through the blood glucose sensor (para. 90: blood glucose values obtained at various times),
determine a type of a behavior performed by the user based on the first blood glucose value and the second blood glucose value (para. 90: blood glucose values obtained at various times; event determined using collected glucose values), and
generate a log for the behavior based on the first blood glucose value, the second blood glucose value, and the type of the behavior (para. 96: system stores data associated with collected measurement data).
As per claim 3, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 2. Kim teaches further comprising:
an acceleration sensor configured to measure acceleration information about a motion of the electronic device (para. 42: acceleration sensor),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determine the type of the behavior based on the acceleration information (para. 91: motion sensor data used to determine event).
As per claim 8, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 2. Kim teaches wherein
the log for the type of the behavior further comprises at least one of a blood pressure and a heart rate of the user (para. 60, 96: blood pressure data obtained and stored).
As per claim 14, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 1. Kim teaches wherein
the electronic device is a wearable device (para. 148: wearable device).
Claims 15-16 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 17, Kim teaches an electronic device comprising:
a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to exchange data with an external device (para. 9: wireless communication circuit); and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (para. 9: processor); and
memory (para. 9: memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
receive information about a blood glucose value of a user from an additional device through the communication module (para. 99: data stored using blood glucose values obtained from external device),
generate logs of the user obtained via the blood glucose sensor while the behavior is performed (para. 96-97: data stored using blood glucose values obtained),
determine a target event obtained through the blood glucose sensor and the logs (para. 90-92: event detected), and
generate a message comprising a suggestion of a target behavior to improve blood glucose values (para. 92: user interface outputs message to user with instructions for event); and
output the message to the user (para. 92: user interface outputs message to user with instructions for event).
Kim does not expressly teach determine a type of behavior performed by the user when a blood glucose value is measured;
generate logs by associating the type of behavior and blood glucose value of the user obtained via the blood glucose sensor while the behavior is performed,
determine a target event related to the type of behavior based on a target blood glucose value of the user obtained through the blood glucose sensor and the logs, and
generate a message comprising a suggestion of a target behavior related to the type of behavior to improve blood glucose values after determination of the target event; and
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 17. Kim teaches wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to output the message by controlling for transmitting the message to the additional device through the communication module (para. 113: message output to mobile device), and
the message is output by the additional device (para. 113: message output to mobile device).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 20, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 19. Kim teaches wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine the type of the behavior performed by the user based on acceleration information obtained by an acceleration sensor and body temperature information obtained by a body temperature sensor (para. 42, 59-60, 91: device uses various sensors such as temperature and acceleration sensor to collect biometric data, biometric data used to determine type of event).
Claims 4 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20200170522) in view of Hayter (US20180199890) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and in further view of Yuen (US20140297217).
As per claim 4, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 2, further comprising:
a body temperature sensor configured to generate body temperature information by measuring a body temperature of the user (para. 42: temperature sensor).
Kim does not expressly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine the type of the behavior based on the body temperature information.
Yuen, however, teaches to a smartwatch with various sensors including motion sensors used to collect user activity data (Fig. 2A; para. 151). Yuen also teaches to collecting temperature data and determining user behavior based on the data collected such as using a temperature sensor to determine that the user is exercising (para. 151, 197).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Yuen with Kim and Hayter based on the motivation of providing personal health monitoring devices, also referred to herein as “biometric tracking” or “biometric monitoring” devices, to be offered in extremely small sizes that were previously impractical (Yuen – para. 3).
As per claim 9, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
an acceleration sensor configured to measure acceleration information about a motion of the electronic device (Kim - para. 42: acceleration sensor),
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
obtain first acceleration information at a third time through the acceleration sensor (Kim - para. 90-94, 127: motion sensor obtains movement at predetermined times),
obtain second acceleration information at a fourth time through the acceleration sensor (Kim - para. 90-94, 127: motion sensor obtains movement at predetermined times).
Kim and Hayter do not expressly teach determine a type of a behavior performed by the user based on the first acceleration information and the second acceleration information, and generate a log for the behavior based on biometric information of the user obtained while the behavior is performed.
Yuen, however, teaches to a smartwatch with various sensors including motion sensors used to collect user activity data (Fig. 2A; para. 354). Yuen also teaches to collecting motion sensor data over time and determining user behavior based on the data collected (para. 354). Yuen further teaches to generating logs containing the data (para. 373).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Kim, Hayter, and Yuen teach the electronic device of claim 9. Kim teaches wherein
the biometric information comprises at least one of a blood glucose, a heart rate, a body temperature, a blood pressure, a stress level, and a consumed energy of the user (para. 42: various sensors can be used to collect user physiological data).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and incorporated herein.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20200170522) in view of Hayter (US20180199890) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Bikhchandani (US11166670B1).
As per claim 5, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 2, but do not expressly teach wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determine the type of the behavior to be having a meal when the first blood glucose value is above a preset average blood glucose range.
Bikhchandani, however, teaches to collecting blood glucose data from a user (col. 17, lines 55-67). Bikhchandani also teaches to using the blood glucose data to detect different meal types based on a blood glucose threshold being exceeded (col. 19, lines 58-67 & col. 20, lines, 1-33).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Bikhchandani with Kim and Hayter based on the motivation of identify appropriate recommendations for improving the glycemic health state of the individual. (Bikhchandani – col. 4, lines 26-27).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Hayter, and Bikhchandani as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Booth (US20180122505).
As per claim 6, Kim, Hayter, and Bikhchandani teach the electronic device of claim 5, but do not expressly teach wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
adjust an operating interval of the blood glucose sensor when the first blood glucose value is above the preset average blood glucose range.
Booth, however, teaches to receiving blood glucose measurements and adjusting the measurement interval of the sensor when the blood glucose measurements fall above a predetermined range threshold (para. 147).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Booth with Kim, Hayter, and Bikhchandani based on the motivation of managing insulin administration or insulin dosing that overcomes problems with manual calculation that may not be accurate due to human error, which can lead to patient safety issues (Booth – para. 2-4).
As per claim 7, Kim, Hayter, and Bikhchandani teach the electronic device of claim 5, but do not expressly teach wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
calculate a fasting blood glucose value of the user, and
set the average blood glucose range based on the calculated fasting blood glucose value.
Booth, however, teaches to receiving blood glucose measurements and adjusting the measurement interval of the sensor when the blood glucose measurements fall above a predetermined range threshold (para. 147). Booth also teaches to establishing a blood glucose target range based on the patients information (para. 57).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 6, and incorporated herein.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K Kim (US20200170522) in view of Hayter (US20180199890) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Blythe (US20130277233).
As per claim 11, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determine whether the target blood glucose value is greater than or equal to a highest blood glucose value predetermined based on the logs, and
determine the target event to be having an abnormal meal when the target blood glucose value is greater than or equal to the highest blood glucose value.
Blythe, however, teaches to collecting blood glucose data over time and comparing the blood glucose values to a threshold (para. 7). Blythe further teaches to outputting data when the glucose value exceeds a threshold for a specific meal (para. 8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Blythe with Kim and Hayter based on the motivation of providing a measurement system that provides for easy and quick assessment of glycemic data (Blythe – para. 6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20200170522) in view of Hayter (US20180199890) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hampapuram (US20230210474)
As per claim 12, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determine a blood glucose reduction time based on the target blood glucose value, and
determine the target event to be having an abnormal meal when the determined blood glucose reduction time is greater than or equal to a preset reference blood glucose reduction time.
Hampapuram, however, teaches to glucose alert prediction where a system collects glucose measurements and calculates a rate of change for the glucose values (para. 165). Hampapuram also teaches to determining that the user is undergoing a hypoglycemic condition based on the rate of change being less than a predetermined threshold (para. 165). Hampapuram teaches where after a low threshold alert the user may eat something that starts to increase their glucose but it is not enough so their glucose drops again; alerting the user that their meal may not be sufficient based on the glucose change threshold (para. 198-200).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Hampapuram with Kim and Hayter based on the motivation of allow a user to receive alerts or alarms indicative of glycemic condition in a more accurate and useful way (Hampapuram – para. 7).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20200170522) in view of Hayter (US20180199890) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jepson (US20220061775)
As per claim 13, Kim and Hayter teach the electronic device of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
determine the target event to be excessively exercising when the target blood glucose value is less than or equal to a preset lowest blood glucose value.
Jepson, however, teaches to glucose alert prediction where a system collects glucose measurements and compares the measurements to a low and high threshold (para. 86). Jepson also teaches to provide support for deciding how to mitigate adverse health effects associated with problematic glucose levels, such as by recommending the user perform an action, such as changing a behavior like modify exercise behavior (para. 86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Jepson with Kim and Hayter based on the motivation of improves accuracy of the predicted glucose values (Jepson – para. 135).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-12 regarding claims 1-20 being rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-14 regarding claims 1-20 being rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant claims that:
The claims amount to a particular arrangement of elements that is a technical improvement.
The Examiner asserts that no such unconventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise known computer elements is argued with respect to the present claims. Claim 1 for example recites an electronic device comprising a blood glucose sensor and processor. These additional elements are not arranged in an unconventional and non-generic combination but instead are arranged, and used, in well-known, routine and conventional fashion(s). Additionally, each of these elements individually performs its well-understood, routine and conventional function. This remains true when the elements are viewed as an ordered combination. Each of the elements still performs its well-understood, routine and conventional function in relation to the other elements. The relationship between each of these elements and their respective functions remain those of generic computer devices.
The claims do not recite a mental process because a human cannot measure a blood glucose level of a user.
The Examiner, however, asserts that the measurement step has been classified as an additional element and is not considered part of the abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitation of blood glucose sensor generating blood glucose values, the Examiner submits that these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the steps of the at least one abstract idea are performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The claims reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer and health diagnosis technologies.
The Examiner asserts that the identified judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement – see MPEP 2106.05(a). Here, the purported improvement of computer and health diagnosis (e.g. a recite mental process) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US20190090794) teaches to measuring a blood glucose level of a user and a method thereof, and more particularly, to measurement of a blood glucose level of a user based on intervals before and after an event.
Seo (US20220160266) teaches to providing a method for precisely calibrating a blood glucose value by selecting a different calibration mode for calibrating a blood glucose value based on whether a difference between a blood glucose value measured by a continuous blood glucose measurement system and a reference blood glucose value measured by a separate blood glucose measurement device is out of a predetermined range.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights