DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3-14 are pending.
This action is Final.
Claim Interpretation
No claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “wherein before the communication connection between the remote equipment and the analyte detection device is established, the second processor sends a prompt that needs to be confirmed by the user via the second transceiver” are rejected for being new matter. The examiner is unable to locate support that this intended use as being performed by the second transceiver. It appears that the transceiver is merely a component used for data transmission and reception, but not a structure to perform any confirmation and must be considered new matter. The closest passages appear to be “In order to avoid this possible situation, before the remote equipment 103 establishes the communication connection with the analyte detection device 102, the remote equipment 103 sends a prompt that needs to be confirmed by the user. For example, the device code and other features of the analyte detection device 102 that is about to establish the communication connection are displayed on the remote equipment, and the communication connection can be formally established only after the user confirms.” and “In other embodiments of the invention, before the analyte detection device 102 establishes the communication connection with the remote equipment 103, the remote equipment 103 prompts the user to confirm whether to connect, so as to improve the reliability of the communication connection between the analyte detection device 102 and the remote equipment 103.” As the confirmation appears to be completed by user interaction with remote device with displayed data on the remote equipment, the form of the claim is new matter and one of skill in the art would not have recognized applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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, 3-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations:
“the remote equipment, which is used to search and identify nearby signals, comprising a second processor and a second transceiver, wherein the remote equipment,
wherein the second processor is configured to establish a communication connection with the analyte detection device via the second transceiver, and the second processor is configured to execute a data interaction program, wherein the data interaction program at least includes a scanning program and a real-time program,
wherein the first transceiver transmits a scanning signal in a first power in response to the scanning program is executed,
wherein the first transceiver transmits a real-time signal in a second power in response to the real-time program is executed,” (emphasis added)
renders the claim indefinite. The first issue is that it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the remote equipment,” (first bolded passage) as nothing follows and it does not appear that any further clause refers to this wherein which makes the metes and bounds unclear. Second, it is not clear what effect the remote equipment configurations have on the detection device as the claimed programming is performed only at the remote equipment and the claims do not further limit any structures related to the first processor to affect any functional limitations. For example, how is the first processor structured or configured to allow for the responsive communication signals as claimed? This results in every limitation following the claimed programs is intended use of the system and not bear any patentable weight as the claimed processor and transceiver are capable of such processes. Next, the programs are interpreted as being modes of communication, which is either periodic or on-demand based on the disclosure as filed, such that different modes of communication between the devices is interpreted as reading on the claimed programming in the interaction program, i.e. on demand distinguished from periodic transmissions/communications meets the claimed requirements. For these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear which renders the claim indefinite. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wedekind et al. (Wedekind, US 2017/0281060).
Regarding claim 1, Wedekind teaches a communication system of analyte detection device (see Figure 1A) comprising:
the analyte detection device, which is adapted to be installed on a surface of a user's skin, comprising a first processor and a first transceiver (see at least Figures 1A,C, [0008], [0012], [0058], [0065], [0078]-[0079], [0137]), wherein the first processor is configured to obtain an analyte parameter information in the user's body, and wherein the first transceiver is configured to transmit signals to a remote equipment (see at least Figures 1A,C, [0008], [0012], [0058], [0065], [0078]-[0079], [0137]); and
the remote equipment, which is used to search and identify nearby signals, comprising a second processor and a second transceiver, wherein the remote equipment, wherein the second processor is configured to establish a communication connection with the analyte detection device via the second transceiver, and the second processor is configured to execute a data interaction program, wherein the data interaction program at least includes a scanning program and a real-time program (see at least Figures 1A,C, 2A, multiple data transmission protocols, including scanning with Bluetooth connection as in [0094], and can include transmission over NFC for data transfer as discussed in [0096]-[0100] which reasonably teach the required structures and configurations. See also [0080], [0194], real time display of sensor data [0232]-[0253] see also data transfer; see on demand/periodic transmission modes [0063] “Rather the sensor electronics unit can be configured to communicate with a plurality of different display devices directly, systematically, simultaneously (e.g., via broadcasting), regularly, periodically, randomly, on-demand, in response to a query, based on alerts or alarms, and/or the like.” [0066] In some implementations, one or more display devices are configured to query the sensor electronics unit for sensor information, where the display device requests sensor information from the sensor electronics unit in an on-demand fashion, such as, without limitation, in response to a query. In some implementations, the sensor electronics unit can be configured for periodic, systematic, regular, irregular or aperiodic transmission of sensor information to one or more display devices (e.g., every 1, 2, 5, or 10 minutes or more)... However, any combination of the above-described statuses of data transmission can be implemented with any combination of a paired sensor electronics unit and display device(s).” (emphasis added)),
wherein the first transceiver transmits a scanning signal in a first power in response to the scanning program is executed, wherein the first transceiver transmits a real-time signal in a second power in response to the real-time program is executed, wherein the first power is lower than the second power, wherein the first power and the second power are adjusted according to a communication between the analyte detection device and the remote equipment to adjust an effective distance of the scanning signal or the real-time signal (these limitations are claimed as intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0096]-[0100] and [0232]-[0253], where such structures present are necessarily able to perform such intended use of communication protocols including using Bluetooth and NFC communication channels in agreement with the disclosure as filed).
Regarding claim 3, Wedekind teaches wherein the effective distance of the scanning signal is 0~1m, and the effective distance of the real-time signal is 0~10m (these limitations further limit intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0096]-[0100] and [0232]-[0253]).
Regarding claim 4, Wedekind teaches wherein when the remote equipment is within the effective distance, the second processor establishes the communication connection with the analyte detection device, otherwise, the communication connection with the analyte detection device is not established (these limitations further limit intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0096]-[0100] and [0232]-[0253]).
Regarding claim 5, Wedekind teaches wherein when the scanning program is executed, the first processor sends the analyte parameter information via the first transceiver to the remote equipment at least once (intended use of one device related to contingent operations of a second device, reasonably taught by the claimed structures and functions as set forth in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Wedekind teaches wherein the analyte parameter information includes a real-time analyte parameter information and/or a historical analyte parameter information (these limitations further limit intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0081]).
Regarding claim 7, Wedekind teaches wherein when the real-time program is executed, the first processor sends a real-time analyte parameter information via the first transceiver to the remote equipment at a fixed time interval (intended use of one device related to contingent operations of a second device, reasonably taught by the claimed structures and functions as set forth in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Wedekind teaches wherein the difference between the scanning signal and the real-time signal also lies at least in a signal frequency, a signal type or/and a signal format (these limitations further limit intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0096]-[0100] and [0232]-[0253], where such structures present are necessarily able to perform such intended use of communication protocols including using Bluetooth and NFC communication channels in agreement with the disclosure as filed).
Regarding claim 9, Wedekind teaches wherein before the communication connection between the remote equipment and the analyte detection device is established, the second processor sends a prompt that needs to be confirmed by the user via the second transceiver (these limitations are claimed as intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0204]).
Regarding claim 10, Wedekind teaches wherein after the second processor establishes the communication connection with the analyte detection device, the analyte detection device is stored as a white list device of the remote equipment, and the second transceiver only receives the signals transmitted by the white list device (these limitations are claimed as intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0216]).
Regarding claim 11, Wedekind teaches wherein the scanning program and the real-time program are switched by a control command (these limitations are claimed as intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0104], [0116], [0128], [0244], [0250]).
Regarding claim 12, Wedekind teaches wherein after the second transceiver searches the signals and before the second processor establishes communication with the analyte detection device, the second processor executes a communication data interaction program with the analyte detection device, and an effective time of the communication data interaction program is preset as t (these limitations further limit intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0091], [0094], [0096]-[0100], [0170], [0178],[0224] and [0232]-[0253]).
Regarding claim 13, Wedekind teaches wherein the effective time t of the communication data interaction program is 2~7s (these limitations further limit intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0091], [0094], [0096]-[0100], [0170], [0178],[0224] and [0232]-[0253]).
Regarding claim 14, Wedekind teaches wherein when a duration T of the communication data interaction program is shorter than or longer than the effective time t, the remote equipment does not establish the communication connection with the analyte detection device (these limitations further limit intended use and are met by the required structures and configuration as prior discussed; these features are reasonably taught in at least [0091], [0094], [0096]-[0100], [0170], [0178],[0224] and [0232]-[0253]).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification filed 3/30/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the drawings; the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the specification.; the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; however, the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection as presented above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; no claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments to the claims. Applicant’s contention is to the limitations of transmit signals/power used by the analyte device, however, the analyte device is not claimed in such a way that there is a functional limitation by configuration to perform such functions, but such functions are intended result of the communication interaction program operated by the remote device. What function is present in the claims that causes a functional configuration in the detection device based on the communication protocol? To clarify, where is a limitation affecting operation of the analyte device based on functions in the analyte device itself and not on processing configurations of the remote equipment? As claimed, the remote equipment is configured for executing a program, the analyte device is not, and any limitations are mere intended use where a processor/transceiver structures present are certainly capable of such configurations. The rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above to account for the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights