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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 105-121 are 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.
The current specification fails to support the new limitation “a first portion corresponding to a response of the user to the first logged event” and “a second portion corresponding to a response of the user to the second logged event” in claims 105 and 121.
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 105-121 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.
Claims 105 and 121 recite limitations “a first portion corresponding to a response of the user to the first logged event” and “a second portion corresponding to a response of the user to the second logged event” these limitations are not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in art would not be able to know if the portion corresponds to the logged event as an input from the user, or the portion just displays a response, such as, link, recommendation, etc., based on the logged event. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed a first portion corresponding to a response of the user to the first logged event” and “a second portion corresponding to a response of the user to the second logged event”.
Examiner respectfully notes for purpose of examination the claimed limitations above, will be interpreted as the portion just displays a response, such as, link, recommendation, etc., based on the logged event.
Claim 113 recites the limitation "the first graph" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 114 recites the limitation "the second graph" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 105-121 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hayter et al (US 2021/0050085).
As to claims 105, 107-109 and 121, Hayter teaches a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a glucose monitoring software application that, when executed by one or more processors of a reader device, causes the one or more processors to for displaying metrics relating to a user (system in fig.1-6, abstract), the system comprising:
wireless communication circuitry (126, par.101, fig.4) configured to receive measured glucose data and logged activity information (126 of display 120 received all kind of data from glucose meter and/or remote devices, as best seen in fig.1-2, par.101-106, as well, as activity log from the user, abstract, par.103, par.160, par.174 and par.313;
a display (122, par.99, fig.4) configured to visually present information; and
one or more processors (131, par.101, fig.4) coupled with the wireless communication circuitry, the display, and a memory (125, par.101-103, fig.4) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine a plurality of glucose levels of the user based on the glucose data received in a plurality of time periods, wherein each of the time periods comprises a logged activity (determining glucose metric/patterns 254 and/or 256 in real-time during multiple time window, for hours and/or for days, par.119-120, par.393-396, and logging user activities, such as, meals consumed, activities and/or administering medications, par.103, par.113, par.160, par.174 and par.313, fig.6);
display a first card comprising a first glucose profile for a first time period (displaying graph/card at the left side of graph 256 from 9am to 11:59am having glucose concentration profile 256 in time window for hours during the first day, or first portion of hours during the same day and/or whole graph 256 for the first day , par.119, par.122-124, as best seen in fig.6 the time window in hours during the day)(glucose monitoring data is collected in a time range, for example, between −2.5 and 1.5 hours, par.131, par.137-138, GPA algorithm referenced in 402. Method 410 can be performed for a particular TOD period that can be an entire day (e.g., a 24 hour period), or a portion of a day that is delineated by time blocks (e.g., three 8 hour periods), par.174, par.398) including a first logged event (logging user activity during the first period, par.103, par.160, par.174 and par.313, section 262 in fig.6), wherein the first glucose profile comprises a first portion corresponding to a response of the user to the first logged event, wherein the first portion is distinct from a remaining portion of the first glucose profile (portions 260 and 262 during the first portion, which are distinct from the graph portion 256-258, par.120-121, fig.6),
wherein the first glucose profile comprises first second, and third portions, wherein the first portion, the second portion and third portions are with different colors (the graphs are divided into three color-coded portions, first potion wherein glucose below normal range displayed in red, the time in target range can be displayed in green, and the time above the target range can be displayed in yellow or orange, par.119, fig.6),
display a second card different from the first card, the second card comprising a second glucose profile for a second time period (displaying graph in the middle of graph 256 from 12pm to 6pm, having glucose concentration profile 256 in time window for hours during the second day, or second portion of hours during the same day, and/or whole graph 256 for the second, par.119, par.122-124, fig.6) and including a second logged event (logging user activity during second time period, such as, meals consumed, activities and/or administering medications, par.103, par.113, par.160, par.174 and par.313, section 262 in fig.6), wherein the second glucose profile comprises a second portion corresponding to a response of the user to the second logged event, wherein the second portion is distinct from a remaining portion of the second glucose profile (portions 260 and 262 of the second time period, which are distinct from the graph portion 256-258, par.120-121, fig.6),
wherein the second glucose profile comprises first, second, and third portions, wherein the first portion, the second portion and third portions are with different colors (the graphs are divided into three color-coded portions, first potion wherein glucose below normal range displayed in red, the time in target range can be displayed in green, and the time above the target range can be displayed in yellow or orange, par.119, fig.6), and
display at least one additional card comprising at least one additional glucose profile for at least one additional time period (displaying graph/card at the right side of graph 256 having glucose concentration profile 256 in time window for hours during the third day, or third portion of hours during the same day, and/or whole graph 256 for the third day, par.119, fig.6) and a description of at least one additional logged event (logging user activity during third time period, such as, meals consumed, activities and/or administering medications, par.103, par.113, par.160, par.174 and par.313, section 262 in fig.6), wherein the at least one additional glucose profile comprises first, second, and third portions a third portion corresponding to a response of the user to the at least one additional logged event, wherein the third portion is distinct from a remaining portion of the at least one additional glucose (logging user activity during third time period, such as, meals consumed, activities and/or administering medications, par.103, par.113, par.160, par.174 and par.313, section 262 in fig.6), wherein the at least one additional glucose profile comprises first, second, and third portions, wherein the first portion, the second portion and third portions are with different colors (the graphs are divided into three color-coded portions, first potion wherein glucose below normal range displayed in red, the time in target range can be displayed in green, and the time above the target range can be displayed in yellow or orange, par.119, fig.6).
Still, as to claims 105, 107-109 and 121, Hayter teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teach wherein the first portion and third portions are a first color, and wherein the second portion is a second color and/or third color, wherein the second color and the third color are the same color, wherein the second color and the third color are different colors.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to color each portion of the graph with a preferred color because the Applicant has not disclosed that the choice of three different colors for each portion of the display provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the display taught by Hayter’s invention and the Applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the color-coded display taught by Hayter’s invention or the claimed colors because both display systems would perform the same function of using different color to represent different glucose values/patterns to the user and alert the user based on color codes.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Hayter’s invention to obtain the invention as specified in Claims 105, 107-109 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Hayter’s invention. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 106, Hayter teaches the system, wherein the first card further comprises a first pictoral representation of the first logged event and the second card further comprises a second pictoral representation of the second logged event (the pictorial graph in the middle of display 250 having glucose concentration profile 256, and/or TIR graph 252, in the first and second days and/or in the first and second hours of the day).
As to claim 110, Hayter teaches the system, wherein the first card further comprises a first icon associated with the first logged event on the first glucose profile (icons/boxes 258 on different portions of the time window of the graph during first day, par.119-120, fig.6)(Examiner respectfully notes that since glucose monitor is during multiple hours during the day/days, where the user must be doing different activities, such as, meals consumed, activities and/or administering medications, so boxes 258 can be related/associated to different activities during the day).
As to claim 111, Hayter teaches the system, wherein the second card further comprises a second icon associated with the second logged activity on the second glucose profile (icons/boxes 258 on different portions of the time window of the graph during second day, par.119-120, fig.6)(Examiner respectfully notes that since glucose monitor is during multiple hours during the day/days, where the user must be doing different activities, such as, meals consumed, activities and/or administering medications, so boxes 258 can be related/associated to different activities during the day).
As to claim 112, Hayter teaches the system, wherein the at least one additional card further comprises at least one additional icon associated with the at least one additional logged even on the at least one additional glucose profile (icons/boxes 258 on different portions of the time window of the graph during third day, par.119-120, fig.6)(Examiner respectfully notes that since glucose monitor is during multiple hours during the day/days, where the user must be doing different activities, such as, meals consumed, activities and/or administering medications, so boxes 258 can be related/associated to different activities during the day).
As to claims 113-115, Hayter teaches the system, wherein the first portion of the first glucose profile, the second portion of the second glucose profile, and the at least one additional portion of the additional profile glucose is about a 2 hour time period of the first graph, the second graph, and the at least one additional graph, respectively (glucose measure data is displayed withing hours, par.119, as best seen in the middle graph in display 250 in fig.6, glucose monitoring data is collected in a time range, for example, between −2.5 and 1.5 hours, par.131, par.137-138, GPA algorithm referenced in 402. Method 410 can be performed for a particular TOD period that can be an entire day (e.g., 24 hours period), or a portion of a day that is delineated by time blocks (e.g., three 8 hour periods), par.174, par.396-398).
However, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain glucose data in about a 2 hours’ time period, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value/range of a result of effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215(CCPA 1980).
As to claim 116, Hayter teaches the system, wherein each of the first logged event and the second logged event comprises logged food and drinks (user logged meal, abstract, par.103, par.113, par.160, par.174-175), logged exercise activity (logging user activities, abstract, par.103, par.113, par.160, par.174, par.313), logged feelings (logging patient behavior, par.160), and combinations thereof.
As to claim 117, Hayter teaches the system, wherein the first time period and the second time period are on the same day (as best seen in fig.6 the graph in the middle of display 250 having glucose concentration profile 256, and/or TIR graph 252 are time window of hours of the same day, par.119).
As to claim 118, Hayter teaches the system, wherein the first logged event and the second logged event are related (logged activities can be for the same day and/or for multiple days, par.103, par.113, par.160, par.174, par.313).
As to claims 119-120, Hayter teaches the system, wherein the first portion comprises a first spike in glucose levels and the second portion comprises a second spike in glucose levels (the highest glucose levels in first and second boxes 258 in graph 256, par.119-121, fig.6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 regarding the cited references, whether considered individually or in a proper combination, do not teach, describe, or suggest displaying first and second cards with the recited limitations and that various graphs taught by Hayter’s invention in the glucose concentration profile 256 are all for the same time period have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the claimed limitation “display a first card comprising a first glucose profile for a first time period” and “display a second graph card different from the first card, the second card comprising a second glucose profile for a second time period” in claims 105 and 121 may be interpreted as first and second time periods at the same day (different hours of the same day) and/or different days, and does not necessarily mean the first and second time periods are for different days or weeks, and also does not necessarily mean the first and second card are displayed at the same screen at the same time, it may be interpreted as the first card is displayed at first time point and at a later time point the second card is displayed. Since Hayter’s invention teaches displaying multiple boxes 258 at different time periods of the same day in glucose concentration profile 256 256, and/or TIR graph 252 in time window for hours during the first day, or first portion of hours during the same day, and displaying graph in the middle of display 250 having glucose concentration profile 256, and/or TIR graph 252 6in time window for hours during the second day, or second portion of hours during the same day (par.119, par.122-124, as best seen in fig.6), and also displaying logging user activity, such as, meals consumed, activities and/or administering medications for each time period (par.103, par.113, par.160, par.174 and par.313, section 262 in fig.6), so it can be fairly interpreted that Hayter’s invention teaches the claimed limitation “display a first card comprising a first glucose profile for a first time period” and “display a second graph card different from the first card, the second card comprising a second glucose profile for a second time period” in claims 105 and 121.
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 MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights