DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 32, the term “a current measurements” should be replaced with –a current measurement -- to address a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required and applicant should carefully review the Claims for any other informalities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 22 and 25 and claims dependent thereon 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 22, the term “determine a revalidation difference between the glucose measurement and measurements of glucose levels by the miniaturized spectrometer using the light.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the terms “the glucose measurement” and “measurements of glucose levels” are referring to separate limitations. Appropriate changes would include -- determine a revalidation difference between the invasively-measured glucose reading and measurements of glucose levels by the miniaturized spectrometer using the light. -- and Examiner will be interpreting the claim as such.
Regarding Claim 25, the term “further comprising calibrating the wearable device by comparing current readings to a starting level of an analyte from a first time analyte levels started being tracked.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the terms “current readings” refers to :invasively-measured glucose readings” or non-invasive “measurements of glucose levels.” As the term “readings” have been associated with invasive measurements, Examiner will be interpreting the claim as the former. Appropriate changes would include -- further comprising calibrating the wearable device by comparing current invasively-measured glucose readings to a starting level of an analyte from a first time analyte levels started being tracked. -- and Examiner will be interpreting the claim as such.
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 21-31 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.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim(s) recites “detecting a drift in the measurements of glucose levels” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“activating a light source to emit a light;”
“receiving electronic signals from a miniaturized spectrometer located on a wearable device, the miniaturized spectrometer including a filter, a collimator, and an optical sensor interconnected together, wherein the light passes through the filter and collimator before impinging on the optical sensor, the electronic signals corresponding to measurements of glucose levels by the miniaturized spectrometer using the light;”
“issuing a prompt to adjust a position of the wearable device in response to detecting the drift.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity.
Furthermore, light sources, miniaturized spectrometers, filters, collimators, and optical sensors are general field of use and displays are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of providing a mentally-determined recommendation on a display as a result of drift detected in measured spectral data and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 22-31 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add details to the mental steps, add details to the extrasolution data gathering steps, add general field of use components to facilitate the extrasolution data gathering, and add mental steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-28 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al (US 2015/0382105) (“Thompson”) in view of Ueda et al (US 2010/0168537) (“Ueda”) and further in view of Rabinovich et al (US 2018/0184920) (“Rabinovich”).
Regarding Claim 21, while Thompson teaches a wearable device (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0056], [0060]-[0061], [0126]-[0136]), comprising:
activating a light source to emit a light ([0126]-[0129] activated by source 1402);
receiving electronic signals from a miniaturized spectrometer located on a wearable device (Fig. 1, [0056], [0060]-[0061] mount 110 which can be a wristband with a measurement platform 130 disposed to enable an observation of subsurface vasculature by housing a data collection system 150, where the components of the data collection system 150 are miniaturized, and may be optical-based, [0114] optical detection by spectroscopy), the miniaturized spectrometer includes a filter, a collimator, and an optical sensor interconnected together, wherein the light passes through the collimator and filter before impinging on the optical sensor ([0125]-[0126] example optical based system for analyte detection, [0132]-[0134] dichroic beamsplitter 1404 or filter 1412 / filter, collimating lens 1408 / collimator, and optical detector 1450 / optical sensor are interconnected together, wherein the light passes through the collimator and filter before impinging on the optical sensor, [0126] the dichroic beamsplitter acts as a filter by controlling what wavelengths of light are transmitted onwards to a target location 1420, [0129]-[0132] where optical signals directed by this system are received at detector 1450), the electronic signals corresponding to measurements of glucose levels by the miniaturized spectrometer using the light;
detecting a drift in the measurements of glucose levels ([0052]); and
Thompson further teaches that improper measurements results may be the result of improper positioning of the system (Abstract, [0109]-[0110] mechanical movement of the system may introduce signal noise),
Thompson fails to teach issuing a prompt in response to detecting the drift.
However Ueda teaches a blood glucose management system (Abstract) using an optically-based non-invasive glucose monitor ([0070]-[0075]) where a drift in the measurement of glucose levels is found ([0060], [0107]-[0128] drift is considered over time along with time since last calibration with invasive reading, [0129]-[0134] a drift is found necessitating recalibration) and is followed by the issuing of a prompt to perform a recalibration action in response to detecting the drift ([0129]-[0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to evaluate the drift of the data in Thompson and specifically identify whether the data is characteristic of sensor drift as taught by Ueda as this differentiates between abnormal values that require an intervention for the patient (e.g. hyperglycemia) and abnormal values that require an intervention for the system (e.g. misaligned optical system).
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach the issued prompt is to adjust a position of the wearable device in response to detecting the drift.
However Rabinovich teaches a wearable physiological monitoring system (Abstract) comprising optical physiological monitors ([0075]), the tracking of placement and contact quality of sensors ([0016]), and issuing a prompt for wearable device position adjustment based on the sensor contact quality ([0127]-[0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to evaluate the drift of the data in Thompson and Ueda and further incorporate an issued prompt to adjust a position of the wearable device in response to detecting the drift as Rabinovich teaches this is also a way to improve the data quality. And adjustment of position of the wearable device does not require an invasive sampling as taught by Ueda which may be preferable for a patient.
Regarding Claim 22, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 21, further comprising:
issuing a prompt to take a revalidation measurement comprising an invasively-measured glucose reading ([0009] “The invasive measurement command component receives an invasive measurement command signal outputted from the controller when the amount of change in the estimated blood glucose level during calibration has reached or exceeded a preset non-invasive blood glucose threshold, and instructs the invasive blood glucose measurement apparatus to measure the blood glucose level.” After a set amount of change occurs during a set time period or after the end of a set time period, a prompt is sent to the invasive blood glucose measurement apparatus, [0060], [0107]-[0117] a revalidation measurement condition is met requiring an invasively-measured glucose reading for recalibration);
receive the invasively-measured glucose reading ([0036], [0060] invasive reading received by the non-invasive blood glucose measurement apparatus to identify current calibration data, [0107]-[0117] a recalibration is performed); and
determine a revalidation difference between the invasively-measured glucose reading and measurements of glucose levels ([0036], [0060], [0118]-[0128] where a revalidation difference is evaluated from the last invasively-measured glucose and the current measurements of glucose levels from the non-invasive monitoring, i.e. an amount of change in the estimated blood glucose level) by the miniaturized spectrometer using the light (See Claim 21 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 23, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 22, further comprising comparing the revalidation difference to a threshold revalidation difference (See Claim 22 Rejection, the revalidation difference / the amount of change in the estimated blood glucose level is compared to the threshold revalidation difference / non-invasive blood glucose threshold 202).
Regarding Claim 24, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 23, further comprising issuing a prompt to calibrate the wearable device if the revalidation difference is greater than the threshold revalidation difference ([0129-[0140] exemplary case of the revalidation difference being greater than the threshold revalidation difference).
Regarding Claim 25, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 24, further comprising calibrating the wearable device by comparing current invasively-measured glucose reading to a starting level of an analyte from a first time analyte levels started being tracked (See Claim 24 Rejection, the tracking of calibration in Ueda is considered from “the blood glucose level of the invasive blood glucose measurement apparatus 101 at a time of 0 minutes”).
Regarding Claim 26, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 25, wherein the starting level of the analyte is a starting invasively-measured glucose reading (See Claim 25 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 27, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 22, further comprising calibrating the wearable device using the invasively-measured glucose reading to adjust the measurements of glucose levels (See Claim 22 Rejection, Ueda ([0009], [0036], [0129]-[0140] the change in the glucose reading necessitates finding a new calibration relationship, leading to finding a new formula to calibrate the wearable device, thus adjusting the results of the measurements of glucose levels) by the miniaturized spectrometer using the light (See Claim 21 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 28, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 21, wherein the filter is a dichroic filter (See Claim 21 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 30, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 21, and Thompson further teaches the method comprising a second optical sensor, wherein the second optical sensor takes a second measurement used to reduce noise in the measurement ([0097], [0109]-[0110]).
Regarding Claim 31, Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 21, and Thompson further teaches the method comprising
transmitting the electronic signals by a communication link to a remote device for processing of the electronic signals to determine the measurements of the glucose levels from the electronic signals ([0088]-[0090] processing of the system may be performed by an external processor at an external server); and
receiving the measurements of the glucose levels from the remote device ([0089] data may be received by remote server for calculation and returned to wearable device).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Ueda and further in view of Rabinovich and further in view of Rule (US 2015/0045641).
Regarding Claim 29, while Thompson, Ueda, and Rabinovich teach the method of claim 21, and Thompson further teaches where the filter is a grating or a prism ([0133], [0136] both possible filters may be embodied by a grating or prism), their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the filter is a grism.
However Rule teaches a spectroscopic analyzer of a patient (Abstract, [0172]-[0173]) where the spectroscopic system may configure a filter as a combination of a grating and a prism ([0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the filter of Thompson as a combined grating and prism as taught by Rule as a standardized optic for the system of Thompson that accomplishes the controlled reflection and/or transmission of light necessitated in the filters of Thompson. Setting a standardized optic will ensure consistency in results across applications of the spectrometer of Thompson.
Claim(s) 32-33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Ward et al (US 2008/0125636) (“Ward”).
Regarding Claim 32, while Thompson teaches a wearable device (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0056], [0060]-[0061]), comprising:
a band configured to fit on a wrist (Fig. 1, [0056], [0060]-[0061] mount 110 which can be a wristband);
a light source and miniaturized spectrometer positioned in the band to measure an analyte level, the miniaturized spectrometer includes a filter, a collimator, and an optical sensor interconnected together, wherein the light passes through the collimator and filter before impinging on the optical sensor (Fig. 1, [0056], [0060]-[0061] mount 110 has a measurement platform 130 disposed to enable an observation of subsurface vasculature by housing a data collection system 150, where the components of the data collection system 150 are miniaturized, and may be optical-based, [0114] optical detection by spectroscopy, [0125]-[0126] example optical based system for analyte detection, [0132]-[0134] dichroic beamsplitter 1404 or filter 1412 / filter, collimating lens 1408 / collimator, and optical detector 1450 / optical sensor are interconnected together, wherein the light passes through the collimator and filter before impinging on the optical sensor, [0126] the dichroic beamsplitter acts as a filter by controlling what wavelengths of light are transmitted onwards to a target location 1420);
a user interface connected to the band (Fig. 1, [0056], [0060]-[0061], [0065] user interface 190);
a memory device storing instructions ([0078], [0081]); and
a processing device for executing the instructions ([0078], [0080]-[0081]), the instructions including:
activating the light source to emit the light ([0126]-[0129] activated by source 1402);
receiving measurement data from the miniaturized spectrometer ([0129]-[0132] received by detector 1450);
storing the measurements to the memory device ([0048], [0078], [0081] once data is collected, it is stored);
creating display data including;
a current measurement ([0065], [0067]); and
displaying the display data on the user interface ([0065], [0067] measured results are displayed), and
Thompson further teaches a step of accessing a memory for a stored data set of past measurements ([0091] trend analysis on collected data is available for download),
Thompson fails to teach accessing the memory to create display data; and
creating display data further including a coefficient of variation of the measurements and past measurements.
However Ward teaches a method and apparatus for managing glucose control (Abstract) comprising the utility of a coefficient of variation metric for glucose control (Fig. 2, [0023] "In an embodiment, one or more values may be used to determine an individual's success at controlling glucose levels in his/her body, and may further be used to provide information or recommendations to ensure better control in the future. In embodiments, such values may include (1) the average glucose level (may be provided from A1C and/or average sensed values), (2) the deviation of glucose values (for example, the coefficient of variation or the standard deviation--may come from the continuously sensed values),”), displaying current measurements, past measurements, and a variation graphic along with a glucose control metric (Figs. 5A-5C, [0053] "In an embodiment, the various metrics described herein may be displayed on the screen of an electronic monitoring unit… the display may provide textual or numeric readouts and/or may show a simple graphical representation of the data.” [0057] “Display type 524 provides a combination graphical and textual representation 518 of a glucose control index, as well as an indication of the relevant time period for which the values were measured. In addition, FIG. 5C illustrates that different metrics may be combined in a single display, as a real time glucose average 526 is also provided.” displays may be switched through with a display for current values in Fig. 5A, past values in Fig. 5B, and variation in Fig. 5C, [0023] where both the coefficient of variation and the average glucose level are metrics useful for glucose control), and teaches displaying variation in multiple forms (Figs. 2-3. [0030], [0042]-[0043] as areas of hyperglycemic ranges, normoglycemic ranges, and hypoglycemic ranges and as percentage of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the display teachings of Ward to the user interface of Thompson and as this provides more nuanced glucose control by enabling a user to consider the present state of the user, the historical state of the user, and variation within a historical period of the user. Furthermore, it would be obvious that the display can include a coefficient of variation metric as taught by Ward in addition to the average glucose value as the coefficient of variation would be another textual representation 518 for glucose control, improving the diagnostic communication provided by the display. Finally, it would be obvious to access a memory device as part of the displaying process as a memory device acts as a source for the data needed for the trend line presentation.
Regarding Claim 33, Thompson and Ward teach the wearable device of claim 32, wherein the filter is a dichroic filter (See Claim 32 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 35, Thompson and Ward teach the wearable device of claim 32, further comprising a second optical sensor, wherein the second optical sensor takes a second measurement used to reduce noise in the measurement ([0097], [0109]-[0110]).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Ward and further in view of Rule.
Regarding Claim 34, while Thompson and Ward teach the wearable device of claim 32, and Thompson further teaches where the filter is a grating or a prism ([0133], [0136] both possible filters may be embodied by a grating or prism), their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the filter is a grism.
However Rule teaches a spectroscopic analyzer of a patient (Abstract, [0172]-[0173]) where the spectroscopic system may configure a filter as a combination of a grating and a prism ([0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the filter of Thompson as a combined grating and prism as taught by Rule as a standardized optic for the system of Thompson that accomplishes the controlled reflection and/or transmission of light necessitated in the filters of Thompson. Setting a standardized optic will ensure consistency in results across applications of the spectrometer of Thompson.
Claim(s) 36-38 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Ward and further in view of Ueda.
Regarding Claim 36, while Thompson teaches a wearable device (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0056], [0060]-[0061]), comprising:
a band (Fig. 1, [0056], [0060]-[0061] mount 110 which can be a wristband);
a light source connected to the band to emit a light (Fig. 1, [0056], [0060]-[0061] mount 110 has a measurement platform 130 disposed to enable an observation of subsurface vasculature by housing a data collection system 150, where the components of the data collection system 150 may be optical-based, [0114] optical detection by spectroscopy, [0125]-[0127] example optical based system for analyte detection using a light source 1402);
a miniaturized spectrometer connected to the band to receive the light, the miniaturized spectrometer includes a filter, a collimator, and an optical sensor interconnected together, wherein the light passes through the collimator and filter before impinging on the optical sensor (Fig. 1, [0056], [0060]-[0061] where the components of the data collection system 150 are miniaturized, [0114] optical detection by spectroscopy, [0125]-[0126] example optical based system for analyte detection, [0132]-[0134] dichroic beamsplitter 1404 or filter 1412 / filter, collimating lens 1408 / collimator, and optical detector 1450 / optical sensor are interconnected together, wherein the light passes through the collimator and filter before impinging on the optical sensor, [0126] the dichroic beamsplitter acts as a filter by controlling what wavelengths of light are transmitted onwards to a target location 1420);
a user interface connected to the band, the user interface including a display (Fig. 1, [0056], [0060]-[0061], [0065] user interface 190);
a communication link connected to the band ([0079], [0087] communication platform 1830 with wireless antenna);
a memory device connected to the band, the memory device storing instructions ([0078], [0081]); and
a processing device connected to the band ([0078], [0080]-[0081]), the processing device executing the instructions, the instructions including:
receiving electronic signals from the miniaturized spectrometer ([0126]-[0129] activated by source 1402, received by detector 1450);
sending the electronic signals to a remote device ([0088]-[0090] processing of the system may be performed by an external processor at an external server);
receiving measurement data from the remote device ([0089] data may be received by remote server for calculation and returned to wearable device) comprising:
a current patient condition ([0088]);
a previous measured analyte value ([0090] through baselines)
a current analyte level ([0065], [0067], [0088]);
storing the measurement data to the memory device ([0048], [0078], [0081] once data is collected, it is stored);
displaying the measurement data on the user interface ([0065], [0067] measured results are displayed).
Thompson fails to teach receiving measurement data from the remote device further comprising:
a coefficient of variation of the analyte level; and
displaying said measurement data.
However Ward teaches a method and apparatus for managing glucose control (Abstract) comprising the utility of a coefficient of variation metric for glucose control (Fig. 2, [0023] "In an embodiment, one or more values may be used to determine an individual's success at controlling glucose levels in his/her body, and may further be used to provide information or recommendations to ensure better control in the future. In embodiments, such values may include (1) the average glucose level (may be provided from A1C and/or average sensed values), (2) the deviation of glucose values (for example, the coefficient of variation or the standard deviation--may come from the continuously sensed values),”), displaying current measurements, past measurements, and a variation graphic along with a glucose control metric (Figs. 5A-5C, [0053] "In an embodiment, the various metrics described herein may be displayed on the screen of an electronic monitoring unit… the display may provide textual or numeric readouts and/or may show a simple graphical representation of the data.” [0057] “Display type 524 provides a combination graphical and textual representation 518 of a glucose control index, as well as an indication of the relevant time period for which the values were measured. In addition, FIG. 5C illustrates that different metrics may be combined in a single display, as a real time glucose average 526 is also provided.” displays may be switched through with a display for current values in Fig. 5A, past values in Fig. 5B, and variation in Fig. 5C, [0023] where both the coefficient of variation and the average glucose level are metrics useful for glucose control), and teaches displaying variation in multiple forms (Figs. 2-3. [0030], [0042]-[0043] as areas of hyperglycemic ranges, normoglycemic ranges, and hypoglycemic ranges and as percentage of time); and Ward further teaches the gathering of a reference value for calibration from a separate device ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the display teachings of Ward to the user interface of Thompson and as this provides more nuanced glucose control by enabling a user to consider the present state of the user, the historical state of the user, and variation in within a historical period of the user. Furthermore, it would be obvious that the variation display can include a coefficient of variation metric as taught by Ward in addition to the average glucose value as the coefficient of variation would be another textual representation 518 for glucose control, improving the diagnostic communication provided by the display.
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach receiving measurement data from the remote device further comprising:
a last invasively measured analyte level; and
displaying said measurement data.
However Ueda teaches a blood glucose measurement system (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0009], [0051]) comprising the use of a non-invasive glucose measurement apparatus and an invasive glucose measurement apparatus where a last invasive measured analyte level may be displayed to facilitate the calibration process of the non-invasive glucose monitor ([0201] invasive measurement was paired with time of invasive measurement [0203] the invasive measurement may be displayed so the value may be used like the transferred data 155 in the [0186]-[0194], facilitating the calibration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the finding of an invasive glucose value to enable calibration as taught by Ueda with the systems of Thompson and Ward as this provides an example separate device for the validity verification in Ward, along with how it may be used ([0048]).
Regarding Claim 37, Thompson, Ward, and Ueda teach the wearable device of claim 36, wherein the instructions further include:
calibrating the wearable device using an invasively-measured glucose reading to adjust the measurements of glucose levels by the miniaturized spectrometer using the light (See Claim 36 Rejection, [0186]-[0195] Ueda teaches a calibration routine from invasively-measured glucose readings to a non-invasive glucose monitor, where Thompson’s system is the non-invasive glucose monitor).
Regarding Claim 38, Thompson, Ward, and Ueda teach the wearable device of claim 36, wherein the filter is a dichroic filter (See Claim 32 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 40, Thompson, Ward, and Ueda teach the wearable device of claim 36, and Thompson teaches the wearable device further comprising a second optical sensor, wherein the second optical sensor takes a second measurement used to reduce noise in the measurement ([0097], [0109]-[0110]), and where the wearable device can generally send electronic signals to the processing device, the instructions further including transmitting the electronic signals to the remote device for processing (See Claim 36 Rejection, [0088]-[0090]).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Ward and further in view of Ueda and further in view of Rule.
Regarding Claim 39, while Thompson, Ward, and Ueda teach the wearable device of claim 36, and Thompson further teaches where the filter is a grating or a prism ([0133], [0136] both possible filters may be embodied by a grating or prism), their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the filter is a grism.
However Rule teaches a spectroscopic analyzer of a patient (Abstract, [0172]-[0173]) where the spectroscopic system may configure a filter as a combination of a grating and a prism ([0176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the filter of Thompson as a combined grating and prism as taught by Rule as a standardized optic for the system of Thompson that accomplishes the controlled reflection and/or transmission of light necessitated in the filters of Thompson. Setting a standardized optic will ensure consistency in results across applications of the spectrometer of Thompson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights