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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 17, 20, 28, 34-35, 44, and 47 are amended.
Claims 1-55 are pending.
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 1-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 28-54), machine (claims 1-27), and article of manufacture (claim 55). Accordingly, claims 1-55 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, 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:
A system for integrating health data from multiple wearables, the system comprising:
-an analyte sensor system worn by a user;
-an activity monitor worn by the user; and
-a computer system configured to communicate with the analyte sensor system and the activity monitor, wherein the computer system is operable to:
-receive, from the analyte sensor system worn by the user, a first time series of analyte levels of the user;
-receive, from the activity monitor worn by the user, activity information describing an instance of an activity of a defined activity type, the activity information including location data;
-correlate the analyte levels to the activity information based on a time period during which the instance of the activity occurred; and
-generate integrative activity data based on the correlation of the analyte levels to the activity information, including:
-identifying an occurrence of an analyte event by the user at a predetermined time during the instance of the activity,
-determining a location of the user at the predetermined time during the occurrence of the analyte event, and
-recommending to the user an alternative activity to be performed at the determined location to avoid the occurrence of the analyte event.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: a “mental process” because receiving user’s activity and analyte levels to integrate the information can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – 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(1D(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(1(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”):
A system for integrating health data from multiple wearables, the system comprising:
-an analyte sensor system worn by a user (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); 44, glucose monitoring system);
-an activity monitor worn by the user (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 70); and
-a computer system (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 67) configured to communicate with the analyte sensor system and the activity monitor, wherein the computer system is operable to (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 71):
-receive, from the analyte sensor system worn by the user (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); 44, glucose monitoring system), a first time series of analyte levels of the user;
-receive, from the activity monitor worn by the user (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); 70), activity information describing an instance of an activity of a defined activity type, the activity information including location data;
-correlate the analyte levels to the activity information based on a time period during which the instance of the activity occurred; and
-generate integrative activity data based on the correlation of the analyte levels to the activity information, including:
-identifying an occurrence of an analyte event by the user at a predetermined time during the instance of the activity,
-determining a location of the user at the predetermined time during the occurrence of the analyte event, and
-recommending to the user an alternative activity to be performed at the determined location to avoid the occurrence of the analyte event.
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 limitations reciting the at least one 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(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 28 and 55 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 28 and 55 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to 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 2, 29: The claim specifies first time series received from analyte sensor system and activity information in response to synchronization of activity monitor, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3, 30: The claim specifies correlation based on a span of time period, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 4, 31: The claim specifies computer system operable to receive second time series from activity monitor and correlate first time series from analyte sensor system and second time series from activity monitor, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5, 32: The claim specifies second time series, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 6, 33: The claim specifies generation of integrative activity comprising generation of a graphical control element comparing time series, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, 34: The claim specifies activity information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 8, 10, 35, 37: The claim specifies the computer system to cause the graphical control element to be displayed and changed, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9, 36: The claim specifies time series, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 11, 38: The claim specifies changed span of time for the graphical control element, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12, 39: The claim specifies generation of integrative activity data, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 13, 40: The claim specifies the analyte event, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 14, 41: The claim specifies the computer system receiving a second time series from activity monitor and generating integrative activity data, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15, 42: The claim specifies parameter comprising heart rate or GPS data, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 16, 43: The claim specifies the computer system operable to generate an integrative activity insight, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17, 44: The claim specifies using the computer system to generate integrative insight comprising identifying trigger, validating existence of trigger, and generating a recommendation, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18, 45: The claim specifies the computer system operable to generate health-management insight comprising an activity recommendation, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19, 46: The claim specifies using computer system to generation of an integrative health-management insight comprising analyzing integrative data, identifying one activity and determining statistical benefit, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 20, 47: The claim specifies health management insight using a computer system, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 21, 48: The claim specifies computer system operable to organize activity data on to user interface and present organized data, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 22, 49: The claim specifies computer system operable to aggregate multiple sets of integrative activity data, organize the aggregated data into user interface containers, and present organized aggregated data, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 23, 50: The claim specifies the computer system to be a smartphone, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 24, 51: The claim specifies computer system with a smartphone in communication with a remote system, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 25, 52: The claim specifies analyte sensor system, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 26, 53: The claim specifies activity information identifying second defined activity type, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 27, 54: The claim specifies the activity and the second activity, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 28, and 55 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receive analyte levels, receive activity information, recommending an alternative activity, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); correlate analyte levels to the activity, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); generate integrative activity data, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16-22, 29, 31, 33, 35, 39, 41, 43-49, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2, 29 (receive from analyte sensor system in response to synchronization), 4, 31 (receive second time series), 6, 33 (generate graphical control element), 8, 10, 35, 37 (receive change option for graphical control element), 17-20, 44-47 (generating a recommendation/health insight), 21-22, 48-49 (present organized integrative data) e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 19, 46 (determining statistical benefit), e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 12, 14, 16, 39, 41, 43 (generation of integrative activity data), e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 4, 31 (correlate) e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-55
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0014760).
As per claim 55, Iyer teaches a computer-program product comprising a non-transitory computer-usable medium having computer-readable program code embodied therein, the computer-readable program code adapted to be executed to implement a method comprising:
-receiving, from an analyte sensor system worn by a user, a first time series of analyte levels of the user (Iyer: para. 46; Using a continuous glucose monitor to measure analyte information.);
-receiving, from an activity monitor worn by the user, activity information that identifies an activity of a defined activity type (Iyer: para. 56; para. 63; Receive engagement data that includes physical activity.);
-correlating the analyte levels to the activity based on a time period of the activity (Iyer: para. 56; Receive engagement data the same time period as the glucose levels.); and
-generating integrative activity data based on the correlation of the analyte levels to the activity (Iyer: para. 56; Receive engagement data the same time period as the glucose levels.).
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-34, and 39-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0014760) in view of Zhong et al. (CN 110650683B).
As per claim 1, Iyer teaches a system for integrating health data from multiple wearables, the system comprising:
-an analyte sensor system worn by a user (Iyer: para. 25; para. 46; Using a continuous glucose monitor to measure analyte information.);
-an activity monitor worn by the user (Iyer: para. 64; Activity tracker to measure physical activity.); and
-a computer system configured to communicate with the analyte sensor system and the activity monitor, wherein the computer system is operable to:
-receive, from the analyte sensor system worn by the user, a first time series of analyte levels of the user (Iyer: para. 46; Using a continuous glucose monitor to measure analyte information.);
-receive, from the activity monitor worn by the user, activity information describing an instance of an activity of a defined activity type, the activity information including location data (Iyer: para. 56; para. 63; Receive engagement data that includes physical activity.);
-correlate the analyte levels to the activity information based on a time period during which the instance of the activity occurred (Iyer: para. 56; Receive engagement data the same time period as the glucose levels.); and
-generate integrative activity data based on the correlation of the analyte levels to the activity information (Iyer: para. 56; Receive engagement data the same time period as the glucose levels.).
Iyer does not explicitly teach the following, however, Zhong teaches correlation of the analyte levels to the activity information, including:
-identifying an occurrence of an analyte event by the user at a predetermined time during the instance of the activity (Zhong: pg. 30-31, para. 3; Obtain sensor glucose measurements associated with the patient as well as exercise, activities within a time interval.),
-determining a location of the user at the predetermined time during the occurrence of the analyte event (Zhong: pg. 30-31, para. 3), and
-recommending to the user an alternative activity to be performed at the determined location to avoid the occurrence of the analyte event (Zhong: pg. 38, para. 2; Recommend alternative exercises to perform to achieve desired glucose event.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Zhong would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Zhong to the teachings of Iyer would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying correlation of location and analyte information to Iyer teaching association of exercise and glucose measurements would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system to regulate blood glucose levels (Zhong: background).
As per claim 2, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein:
-the first time series is received from the analyte sensor system on a continuous basis (Iyer: para. 25; para. 46; Using a continuous glucose monitor to measure analyte information.); and
-the activity information is received in response to user-initiated synchronization of the activity monitor (Iyer: para. 56; para. 63; Receive engagement data that includes physical activity.).
As per claim 3, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the correlation is based on a span of time that includes at least one of a period of time before the time period of the activity or a period of time after the time period of the activity (Iyer: para. 85; para. 87; collection of glucose levels are collected during two different time periods.).
As per claim 4, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the computer system is further operable to:
-receive a second time series from the activity monitor worn by the user (Iyer: para. 56; para. 80; para. 87; Receiving second set of engagement data, which includes exercise information. Collected over predefined period time.); and
-correlate the first time series from the analyte sensor system and the second time series from the activity monitor based on the time period of the activity, wherein the generated integrative activity data is based on the correlated first time series and second time series (Iyer: para. 98; Sets of glucose levels and engagement data are associated.).
As per claim 5, the system of claim 4 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the second time series comprises at least one of heart rates, steps, or global positioning system (GPS) data (Iyer: para. 64; Physical activity collected using activity trackers tracking heart rate, steps, GPS, etc..).
As per claim 6, the system of claim 4 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the generation of integrative activity data comprises generation of a graphical control element that compares the first time series with the second time series over a span of time comprising at least a portion of the time period of the activity (Iyer: figure 7C; para. 101).
As per claim 7, the system of claim 6 is as expected. Iyer teaches
-the activity information further includes a heart rate of the user (Iyer: para. 64),
-the heart rate of the user is determined during the occurrence of the analyte event (Iyer: para. 64), and
-an alternative target heart rate is recommended to the user while at the determined location to avoid the occurrence of the analyte event (Iyer: para. 100).
As per claim 12, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the generation of integrative activity data comprises identifying an analyte event during the time period of the activity based on the first time series (Iyer: para. 56; Receive engagement data the same time period as the glucose levels.).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 12 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the analyte event relates to at least one of the analyte levels being below a threshold (Iyer: para. 48-49).
As per claim 14, the system of claim 12 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein:
-the computer system is further operable to receive a second time series from the activity monitor worn by the user (Iyer: para. 64; Activity tracker to measure physical activity.); and
-the generation of integrative activity data further comprises correlating the analyte event to at least one parameter from the second time series based on a time of the analyte event (Iyer: para. 56; Receive engagement data the same time period as the glucose levels.).
As per claim 15, the system of claim 14 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one of heart rate or GPS data (Iyer: para. 64; Physical activity collected using activity trackers tracking heart rate, steps, GPS, etc..).
As per claim 16, the system of claim 12 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the computer system is further operable to generate an integrative activity insight based on the integrative activity data, wherein the integrative activity data comprises a recommendation for future activities of the user (Iyer: para. 43; para. 104; Recommend treatment plans.).
As per claim 17, the system of claim 16 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the generation of an integrative activity insight comprises:
-identifying a possible trigger of the analyte event based on stored configurations (Iyer: para. 47; Provide alert based on data.);
-validating existence of the possible trigger relative to the analyte event (Iyer: para. 47); and
-generating a recommendation related to the possible trigger responsive to the validating (Iyer: para. 104).
As per claim 18, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the computer system is further operable to generate an integrative health-management insight based on the integrative activity data, the integrative health-management insight comprising an activity recommendation for the user (Iyer: para. 104).
As per claim 19, the system of claim 18 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the generation of an integrative health-management insight comprises:
-analyzing the integrative activity data over a period of time (Iyer: para. 102; Integrative glucose values and engagement data (includes exercise));
-identifying, based on stored configurations, at least one activity that represents an incremental addition to a current activity level of the user (Iyer: para. 104; Generate alert including activity that encourages to meet threshold for favorable engagement.); and
-determining, based on the stored configurations, a statistical benefit of adding the at least one activity to the current activity level of the user (Iyer: para. 96; Use statistical algorithms to determine patterns and relationships between glucose levels and engagement information.).
As per claim 20, the system of claim 18 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the generation of an integrative health-management insight comprises:
-analyzing the integrative activity data over a period of time (Iyer: figure 7C); and
-identifying a noteworthy day over the period of time based on at least analyte levels of the user and activities of the user (Iyer: para. 50; Identifying time period associated with triggered events.).
As per claim 21, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the computer system is further operable to:
-organize the integrative activity data into one or more user interface containers of related data (Iyer: para. 50); and
-present the organized integrative activity data to the user (Iyer: figure 7C).
As per claim 22, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the computer system is further operable to:
-aggregate multiple sets of integrative activity data (Iyer: para. 95);
-organize the aggregated multiple sets of integrative activity data into user interface containers of related data (Iyer: para. 95; figure 7C); and
-present the organized aggregated multiple sets of integrative activity data to the user (Iyer: figure 7C).
As per claim 23, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the computer system comprises a smartphone associated with the user (Iyer: para. 24).
As per claim 24, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the computer system comprises a smartphone associated with the user and a remote system in communication with the smartphone (Iyer: para. 24).
As per claim 25, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the analyte sensor system comprises a continuous glucose monitor (Iyer: abstract), the first time series comprising glucose levels of the user (Iyer: para. 45).
As per claim 26, the system of claim 1 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the activity information identifies a second activity of a second defined activity type, the second activity overlapping the activity of the defined activity type (Iyer: para. 25).
As per claim 27, the system of claim 26 is as expected. Iyer teaches wherein the activity and the second activity share at least one of a start time or an end time (Iyer: para. 25; Exercise type, duration, date, start and stop times, etc..).
Claims 28-34 and 39-54 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-7 and 12-27, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 55 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 8-11 and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0014760) in view of Zhong et al. (CN 110650683B) and further in view of Montgomery et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0177360).
As per claim 8, the system of claim 6 is as described. Iyer and Zhong do not explicitly teach the following, however, Montgomery teaches wherein the computer system is further operable to cause the graphical control element to be displayed the graphical control element comprises a change option (Montgomery: para. 59), and the computer system is further operable to:
-receive a user instruction, via the change option, to compare a third time series and a fourth time series over the span of time (Montgomery: para. 59; User interacts with a time or date range to be displayed on a historical trend graph.);
-automatically generate a new graphical control element that compares the third time series with the fourth time series over the span of time (Montgomery: para. 59); and
-automatically cause the new graphical control element to be displayed (Montgomery: para. 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have customizable ability to displaying graphs as taught by Montgomery within the method of Iyer and Zhong. As in Iyer and Zhong, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include customized range for graph display as taught by Montgomery to Iyer and Zhong teaching displaying graphs of different time periods. It would have been obvious that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 9, the system of claim 8 is as described. Iyer does not explicitly teach the following, however, Montgomery teaches wherein the third time series and the fourth time series are different from each of the first time series and the second time series (Montgomery: para. 59; option for multiple time periods.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 8.
As per claim 10, the system of claim 6 is as described. Iyer does not explicitly teach the following, however, Montgomery teaches wherein the graphical control element comprises an option to change a span of time over which the first time series and the second time series are compared, the computer system further operable to:
-receive a user instruction, via the change option, to change the span of time (Montgomery: para. 59);
-automatically generate a new graphical control element that compares the first time series with the second time series over a changed span of time (Montgomery: para. 59); and
-automatically cause the new graphical control element to be displayed (Montgomery: para. 59).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 8.
As per claim 11, the system of claim 10 is as described. Iyer does not explicitly teach the following, however, Montgomery teaches wherein the changed span of time comprises at least one of time before the time period of the activity or time after the time period of the activity (Montgomery: para. 59).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 8.
Claims 35-38 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 8-11, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-55 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea and is an improvement in technology. There are no substantial arguments to provide a rebuttal to, so therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection and has updated the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed for claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that as in the Interview Summary, Examiner stated amendments presented would overcome the art-based rejections. Examiner reviews the interview summary dated 10/30/2025 and it states that further search is required and no agreement was reached. Therefore, Examiner rehashes the rejection for claim 55.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-54 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al. – U.S. Patent No. 11,540,751 – Teaches measuring analyte levels with correlated information.
Mikhno et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2023/0317292 – Teaches a system for measuring glucose values with contextual data from activity tracker.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681