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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-22, 30-35, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0320130 A1 to Valdes et al. (“Valdes”) in view of US 2018/0206281 A1 to Zhang.
As to claims 21, 35, and 40 (the method/tangible media claims being changed accordingly for all claims herein), Valdes discloses a system for presenting information according to device state, the system comprising:
an analyte sensor configured to generate measurements associated with an analyte level of a patient (see [0097] – “…a system is provided for continuous measurement of an analyte in a host that includes: a continuous analyte sensor configured to continuously measure a concentration of the analyte in the host…”; and
a first device in data communication with the analyte sensor (see [0097] – “…a sensor electronics module coupled to the continuous analyte sensor during sensor use and a receiver unit in wireless communication with the sensor electronics module.”) and configured to:
receive one or more analyte measurements from the analyte sensor (see [0026] – “…wirelessly receiving glucose sensor data in a first data format using a first computing device…”).
The Valdes device is configured to present analyte information and coordinate presentation of the analyte information at the determined device, the analyte information comprising at least one of the following: the one or more analyte measurements; or information related to the one or more analyte measurements (see, e.g., Figs. 4-5 and [0168]-[0191]).
While Valdes discloses a multi-device continuous glucose monitoring system for presenting analyte information to first and second devices, Valdes fails to disclose wherein the first device is further configured to
determine a device to present analyte information based on at least one of a state of the first device or a state of a second device, the determined device corresponding to the first device or the second device, the analyte information comprising at least one of the following:
the one or more analyte measurements; or
information related to the one or more analyte measurements; and
coordinate presentation of the analyte information at the determined device.
However, in a similar invention directed to such wireless connection management, Zhang discloses a device configured to determine a device to present information based on at least one of a state of the first device or a state of a second device, the determined device corresponding to the first device or the second device (see entire disclosure, especially [0067] – “when it is confirmed that the slave wearable device has been taken off, the handheld terminal may determine priority of the master wearable device and the handheld terminal, and if determining that the priority of the master wearable device is higher, the handheld terminal may transmit the display information to be displayed, via the first wireless communication link, to the master wearable device for display; if the priority of the handheld terminal is higher, the handheld terminal may display the display information to be displayed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Valdes and Zhang in order to achieve the predictable result of automatically directing the presentation of information to whichever connected device is best suited to display it at a given time.
As to claim 22, Zhang further discloses wherein the second device is a smartwatch (see [0058]-[0059]).
As to claim 30, Zhang further discloses wherein the first device is a smartphone (see [0058]).
As to claim 31, Valdes further discloses wherein the coordination comprises presenting the analyte information at the first device responsive to the determined device corresponding to the first device (see, e.g., Figs. 4-5 and [0168]-[0191]).
As to claim 32, Valdes further discloses wherein the coordination comprises sending the analyte information to the second device responsive to the determined device corresponding to the second device (see, e.g., Figs. 4-5 and [0168]-[0191]).
As to claim 33, Valdes further discloses wherein the coordination comprises allowing the second device to present the analyte information responsive to the determined device corresponding to the second device (see, e.g., Figs. 4-5 and [0168]-[0191]).
As to claim 34, Valdes further discloses wherein the analyte information comprises an alert related to the one or more analyte measurements (see, e.g., Figs. 4-5 and [0168]-[0191]).
Claim(s) 23-25 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valdes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 2016/0073188 A1 to Linden et al. (“Linden”).
As to claims 23 and 36, neither Zhang nor Linden discloses wherein:
the first device is further configured to receive, from the smartwatch, a power status indicating a level of available power at the smartwatch,
the state of the second device comprises the level of available power at the smartwatch, and
the determined device corresponds to the first device responsive to a determination that the level of available power at the smartwatch is below a predetermined threshold.
However, this type of switching or prioritizing between devices was known as shown by Linden (see [0015]-[0017] and [0088]-[0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang/Linden with those of Linden in order to achieve the predictable result that is prioritizing display of sensor/analyte data for the device so that it may fulfills the needs of the user given that underpowered devices will likely become unreliable and/or unavailable in the near future.
As to claims 24 and 37, this is obvious for the same reasons as provided in the treatment of claim 23 given that the only difference appears to be the reversal of parts.
As to claim 25, Linden further discloses wherein the determination of the device is based on a priority scheme and comprises skipping the first device in the priority scheme responsive to the determination that the level of available power at the first device is below the predetermined threshold (see [0092] – master role is removed from the low-power device).
Claim(s) 26-28 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valdes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 2014/0334271 A1 to Park et al. (“Park”).
As to claims 26 and 38, neither Valdes nor Zhang explicitly disclose wherein
the first device is further configured to receive, from the smartwatch, a message indicating device health at the smartwatch,
the state of the second device comprises the device health at the smartwatch, and
the determined device corresponds to the first device responsive to a determination, based on the device health, that the smartwatch is experiencing a performance issue.
However, in a similar device architecture, Park teaches a first device (a smartphone, see Fig 2, element 200) is further configured to receive, from the smartwatch, a message indicating device health (Examiner notes that “device health” is any state leading to its inoperability, such as being in an “unworn” state) at the smartwatch (see [0047] – “For instance, in the smart watch unworn mode, the smart watch 100 may determine the external digital device 200 as the notification device. At this time, the smart watch 100 may transmit a notification start signal to the external digital device 200 so that the external digital device may provide a notification of an event occurring in at least one of the smart watch 100 and the external digital device 200.”),
the state of the second device comprises the device health at the smartwatch (see Id.), and
the determined device corresponds to the first device responsive to a determination, based on the device health, that the smartwatch is experiencing a performance issue (see Id. – the smartwatch tells the external digital device, such as a smart phone, that it should be the one to transmit information to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Valdes/Zhang with those of Park in order to achieve the predictable result of routing the information to the user via a device capable of producing the intended function.
The limitations of claim 27 are obvious for the reasons provided in the treatment of claim 26.
As to claim 28, Park further discloses wherein the determination of the device is based on a priority scheme and comprises skipping the first device in the priority scheme responsive to the determination, based on the device health, that the first device is experiencing a performance issue (see [0045] – the smart watch is of a lower priority given that it is a “sub device”).
Claim(s) 29 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valdes in view of Zhang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 2014/0180595 A1 to Brumback et al. (“Brumback”).
As to claims 29 and 39, Zhang discloses that the determined device corresponds to the smartwatch [0058]-[0059], but fails to disclose the smartwatch is configured to:
detect a predetermined action indicative of a request to generate a glance view related to the analyte information; and
present, in response to the detection, the glance view related to the analyte information.
However, in a similar field, Brumback discloses the steps of detecting, at the smartwatch, a predetermined action indicative of a request to generate a glance view related to patient health and presenting, at the smartwatch and in response to the detecting, the glance view providing the indication of a state of the host-patient (see [0186]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the smartwatch and glucose state of the host-patient of Valdes and Hayes with the predetermined action to generate a glance view providing an indication of the state of the host- patient of Brumback in order to achieve the predictable result of conserving battery power by only activating the display of the smartwatch when the host-patient decides to view it. It would have been further obvious to make the glance view related to the analyte information given that this is the point of the Valdes device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Messersmith whose telephone number is (571)270-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, 8:30 am - 5 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.
/ERIC J MESSERSMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights