Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/693,126

CORRECTION ALARM METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 18, 2024
Examiner
MUSTANSIR, ABID A
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
I-Sens Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
342 granted / 441 resolved
+7.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
502
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§103
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 441 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 03/18/2024. Claims 1-13 are pending and examined below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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) 1-2, 11=13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by EP 2256494 B1 (cited by IDS 10/21/2025; hereinafter referred to as “Saidara”). Regarding claim 1, Saidara, a system for monitoring physiological characteristics, teaches a calibration alarm method (paragraphs [0099], [0102]) comprising: determining an input time of a reference biometric value for calibrating a measurement biometric value measured by a sensor (paragraph [0102]); determining a calibration period in which the input time of the reference biometric value is included (“A reminder timer can also be triggered by a user providing a reference value to the monitor”; paragraph [0102]); calculating a next calibration time based on the determined calibration period (paragraph [0102]); and providing a calibration alarm to a user based on the calculated next calibration time (“the reminders can be alarm signals”; paragraph [0099]), wherein the sensor is configured to be insertable into body of the user and measure biometric information of the user for a certain period of time (abstract; paragraph [0033]). Regarding claim 2, Saidara teaches wherein: the sensor is a sensor configured to measure a blood glucose level of the user (paragraph [0021]), and the reference biometric value is a reference blood glucose value measured using a separate blood glucose meter to calibrate a measurement blood glucose value measured by the sensor (“…processing a previously entered blood glucose reference value, for example from a meter, to calibrate the sensor set…”; paragraph [0034]; “While a calibration is pending or valid as a result of entry of a calibration reference value (e.g., a blood glucose value measured by a blood glucose meter)…”; paragraph [0036]). Regarding claim 11, Saidara teaches wherein the providing of the calibration alarm comprises: determining whether the next calibration time has arrived (paragraphs [0099]-[0102]); determining whether a calibration condition parameter measured at a time point when the next calibration time arrives satisfies a calibration condition (paragraphs [0099]-[0102]); and if the calibration condition parameter satisfies the calibration condition, generating the calibration alarm and providing the generated calibration alarm to the user (paragraphs [0099]-[0102]). Regarding claim 12, Saidara teaches wherein if the calibration condition parameter measured at the time point when the next calibration time arrives does not satisfy the calibration condition, the calibration condition parameter is monitored for a set time, and if the calibration condition parameter monitored for the set time satisfies the calibration condition, the calibration alarm is generated (paragraphs [0099]-[0103]). Regarding claim 13, Saidara teaches continuous biometric information measurement system (abstract), comprising: a sensor configured to be insertable into body of a user and configured to continuously measure a biometric value of the user for a certain period of time (102; paragraph [0021]; Figure 1A); and a user terminal configured to receive the measured biometric value and calibrate the measured biometric value using a reference biometric value (108’ paragraphs [0021]-[0023]; Figure 1A), wherein the user terminal is configured to determine an input time of the reference biometric value for calibrating the measured biometric value measured by the sensor (paragraphs [0099]-[0103]), determine a calibration period in which the input time of the reference biometric value is included (paragraphs [0099]-[0103]), calculate a next calibration time based on the determined calibration period and provide a calibration alarm to the user based on the calculated next calibration time (paragraphs [0099]-[0103]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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. 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) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saidara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20100274515 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hoss”). Regarding claim 3, Saidara does not explicitly teach wherein when a next reference biometric value is input regardless of the next calibration time, a calibration time is recalculated based on a calibration period in which an input time of the next reference biometric value is included. However, Hoss, a method of dynamic analyte sensor calibration based on sensor stability profile, teaches wherein when a next reference biometric value is input regardless of the next calibration time, a calibration time is recalculated based on a calibration period in which an input time of the next reference biometric value is included (abstract; paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Saidara, to implement a dynamic calibration timing period, as taught by Hoss, because when the calibration schedule is fixed and is determined from when the sensor is first positioned in contact with the user's analyte, and the calibration time period falls when it is not convenient or practical to the user, the convenience of the analyte monitoring system may be diminished (paragraph [0013]; as taught by Hoss). Regarding claim 3, Saidara, in view of Hoss, teaches wherein when a next reference biometric value is input regardless of the next calibration time, a calibration time is recalculated based on a calibration period in which an input time of the next reference biometric value is included (paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]; as taught by Hoss). Regarding claim 4, Saidara, in view of Hoss, teaches wherein the calibration alarm method calculates a calibration factor using the reference biometric value or the next reference biometric value, and, until a new reference biometric value is input, calibrates the measurement biometric value using the calibration factor (paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]; as taught by Hoss). Regarding claim 5, Saidara, in view of Hoss, teaches wherein, in the calibration alarm method, the calibration period is divided into an additional stabilization period, a buffer period, and a final stabilization period (paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]; as taught by Hoss). Regarding claim 6, Saidara, in view of Hoss, teaches wherein when the input time of the reference biometric value is within the additional stabilization period, the next calibration time is calculated based on which one calibration period among the additional stabilization period, the buffer period, and final stabilization period includes a first calibration cycle preset after the input time of the reference biometric value (paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]; as taught by Hoss). Regarding claim 7, Saidara, in view of Hoss, teaches wherein if the first calibration cycle preset after the input time of the reference biometric value is within the additional stabilization period, the next calibration time is calculated using the first calibration cycle preset after the input time of the reference biometric value (paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]; as taught by Hoss). Regarding claim 8, Saidara, in view of Hoss, teaches wherein if the first calibration cycle preset after the input time of the reference biometric value is within the buffer period, the next calibration time is calculated using the first calibration cycle preset after the input time of the reference biometric value (paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]; as taught by Hoss). Regarding claim 9, Saidara, in view of Hoss, teaches wherein if the first calibration cycle preset after the input time of the reference biometric value is within the final stabilization period, the next calibration time is calculated using an end time point of the buffer period (paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]; as taught by Hoss). Regarding claim 10, Saidara, in view of Hoss, teaches wherein if the input time of the reference biometric value is within the buffer period or the final stabilization period, the next calibration time is calculated using a second calibration cycle preset after the input time of the reference biometric value (paragraphs [0090], [0099]-[0102]; as taught by Hoss). Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 18, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594039
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CORRECTING BIOMETRIC DATA ON BASIS OF DISTANCE BETWEEN ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND USER, MEASURED USING AT LEAST ONE SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594033
PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTOR, PPG SENSOR, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588815
PHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNAL MONITORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588875
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SENSING PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588840
BLOOD OXYGEN CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENT DEVICE AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 441 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month