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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office action in response to communications received March 16, 2026. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-17 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 102 rejections set forth in the previous office action dated December 17, 2025.
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 1-17 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Independent Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea consisting of a system comprising systems for calculating an edible score, including retrieve, a performance profile relating to a user; determine, an edible of interest; receive, nourishment information relating to the edible of interest; generate, an output an edible score; and display, the edible score.
Independent Claim 1 recites “receiving, information regarding the medicament injection; displaying, a name of the medicament and a dosage amount of the medicament for the medicament injection; displaying, one or more setup steps for preparing the medicament injection; receiving, information regarding a progress of the medication injection; and displaying, an injection dashboard providing one or more voice prompts interrogating the progress of the medication injection, and a progress bar.”
The limitations of Claim 1, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of a “Mental Process” which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “computing device, display, infusion device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer device” language, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually retrieving information regarding the medicament injection. Similarly, the displaying, a name of the medicament and a dosage amount of the medicament for the medicament injection, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of using a “computing device, display, infusion device” to perform all of the “receiving and displaying” steps. The “computing device, display, infusion device” is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) of executing computer-executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 has the following additional elements (i.e., computing device, display, infusion device). Looking to the specification, these components are described at a high level of generality (Page 3 lines 9-12; Principles and embodiments of the present disclosure relate to systems and methods for using functionalities of common household devices, such as Internet-enabled televisions (e.g., smart TVs) or other streaming devices, to improve monitoring and delivery of therapeutic medicines). The use of a general-purpose computer, taken alone, does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-17). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more’ than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, none of the current claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology). These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Mental Process,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Claims 1-17 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 20230390483 A1 to Coyne, III et al. in view for Pat. No.: US 11037668 B2 to Ruchti et al. in view of Pub. No.: WO 2009048984 A1 to NENOV et al. in view of Pub. No.: US 20120293327 A1 to Mountain.
As per Claim 1, Coyne, III et al. teaches a method of providing visual feedback during a medicament injection to a patient, the method comprising:
-- receiving, via a first computing device, information regarding the medicament injection (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 218 and 224; In some embodiments, the drug delivery apparatus or system is associated with one or more specific medication orders 1001 contained within EHR system 1000 via EHR interface 1021 and corresponding order parameters contained within the EHR system, wherein the order parameters include an identifying number 1005, prescriber 1009, medication name 1002, and administration parameters 1007 and time 1008);
-- displaying, via a display of a second computing device, a name of the medicament and a dosage amount of the medicament for the medicament injection (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 218 and 224; In an alternative embodiment, the drug delivery system 775 includes one or more sensors 782 to measure the status of medication administration at one or more stages before, during, and after administration of one or more therapeutic medications studied within a clinical trial 776. As medication administration progresses, sensor 382 data are communicated 781 to a controller 779 and transferred 786 to permanent data storage 785 for later retrieval and analysis 787 by a clinical trial team 784. This provides for later analysis of data by the clinical trial team 784 and verification that each patient received a full medication dose as expected. In an alternative embodiment, the sensors may also be provided on one or more medication reservoirs 776′ containing an investigational therapeutic medication 776. In some embodiments, the drug delivery apparatus or system is associated with one or more specific medication orders 1001 contained within EHR system 1000 via EHR interface 1021 and corresponding order parameters contained within the EHR system, wherein the order parameters include an identifying number 1005, prescriber 1009, medication name 1002, and administration parameters 1007 and time 1008.); and
-- displaying, via the display of the second computing device, one or more setup steps for preparing the medicament injection (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 102; For instance, in a device with multiple needle sets or tubing lumens, feedback related to confirmation of proper setup or readiness to administer medications may comprise an indicator of which needle set should be inserted and in which order, helping a user identify the appropriate needle set among many.).
Coyne, III et al. fails to explicitly teach:
-- receiving, via an infusion device, information regarding a progress of the medication injection …
-- displaying, via the display of the second computing device, an injection dashboard providing one or more voice prompts interrogating the infusion device regarding the progress of the medication injection, and a progress bar.
Ruchti et al. teaches FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary user interface of an infusion pump. As shown, user interface 401 includes status areas 410 showing for example a type of drug and/or infusion rates or warnings if the infusion is stopped. A secondary or piggyback drug may be shown on the right side of the interface for example drug “B”. Status area 420 may show the current infusion state, here shown as STOPPED. Status area 430 may show the dose and rate and/or time remaining for example and may also show any volume to be infused (VTBI), total volume infused or any other information related to the current infusion (see Col 5 || 4-14, Col 9 || 1-11 and Figures 1 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coyne, III et al.in view of Ruchti in order to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Coyne, III et al. already addresses automated delivery and monitoring of medication via an infusion or injection device, but relies primarily on the local pump user interface for conveying status and accepting user input. Ruchti teaches that it is advantageous to provide a network connected secondary computing device that communicates with an infusion device to obtain information about an ongoing medication delivery and present that information on a remote user interface, thereby enabling more flexible monitoring and control of infusion progress. In light of Ruchti, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that implementing Coyne’s infusion system with a remote “dashboard” view on a second computing device, which receives information about the progress of the medication injection from the infusion device and presents that information to the user, is a predictable and straightforward enhancement to improve usability and situational awareness without changing the underlying infusion functionality of Coyne.
Coyne, III et al. and Ruchti fail to explicitly teach:
-- providing one or more voice prompts interrogating the infusion device regarding the progress of the medication injection, and a progress bar.
NENOV teaches some embodiments provide several manual tools for that allow user interaction with the interfaces 115 in order to access desired information. These manual tools may include traditional input devices, such as mice, keyboards, touch screens, trackpads, etc. In some embodiments, one or more of the interfaces 115 includes a voice-control input component that allows a user of the interface 115 to interact with the dashboard through voice commands. Thus, one or more of the interfaces 115 of some embodiments provide (1) a visual component (i.e., a graphical user interface, or "GUI") that interactively displays patient information and (2) an input component, which includes voice command functionality of some embodiments for interacting with the GUI (see paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined Coyne, III et al./Ruchti system in view of Nenov. As discussed above, Coyne, III et al.in view of Ruchti already yields a system in which a second computing device communicates with an infusion device to obtain information about an ongoing medication injection and displays that information on a dashboard style user interface. Nenov teaches that voice-based prompts and voice driven interaction can be used in medical device and clinical dashboards to query device status, guide the user through workflow steps, and obtain responses in a hands-free manner, particularly in clinical environments where a clinician’s hands may be occupied. In view of Nenov, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known voice prompts into the Coyne, III et al./Ruchti dashboard so that the second computing device provides one or more voice prompts that interrogate the infusion device and/or user regarding the progress of the medication injection, thereby improving workflow efficiency and reducing reliance on manual interaction, while using established voice interface techniques in the same type of medical device monitoring context.
Coyne, III et al., Ruchti and Nenov fail to explicitly teach:
-- a progress bar.
Mountain teaches providing a method for displaying the progress of an activity performed on a user device. The method includes outputting, to a display, a progress indicator indicative of the progress made in completing an activity, such as a download, and updating the progress indicator as the activity proceeds. Simultaneously, a first progress rate indicator is also output to the display, the progress rate indicator having a property indicative of the rate at which the activity is being progressed. The property of the progress rate indicator is based on a value determined by receiving a rate value indicative of the activity progress rate and comparing the rate value with a value indicative of the maximum progress rate of the user device for the particular activity (see Mountain paragraph 8 and Figures 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined Coyne, III et al./Ruchti/Nenov system in view of Mountain. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it a routine and predictable design choice to apply Mountain’s progress bar visualization to the Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, and Nenov dashboard so that the dashboard not only provides voice prompts but also includes a progress bar corresponding to the progress of the medication injection, thus enhancing clarity of feedback to the user without requiring any non-obvious changes to the underlying infusion control or communication logic.
As per Claim 2, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 1, wherein the information regarding the medicament injection is received manually via a patient or a caregiver at the first computing device (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 192; …the patient can manually input into external data source self-reports…).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 3, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 1, wherein the information regarding the medicament injection is received by the first computing device scanning a QR code on a component of the medicament injection (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 321; In one or more embodiments, machine readable indicia 1721, 1724 is provided on one or more exterior surfaces of the assembled constraint 1720 as a verification during manufacturing and packaging that the apparatus matches the expected medication and flow rate. In one or more embodiments, the machine-readable indicia 1721, 1724 comprises a one or more of a QR code, data matrix, 2D bar code, or linear bar code. In one or more embodiments, human-readable indicia 1727 is provided on one or more exterior surfaces of the assembled constraint 1720 as verification that the apparatus matches the expected medication and flow rate.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 4, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
-- in response to receiving information regarding the medicament injection, comparing the received information to a patient profile, wherein the patient profile includes a list of one or more prescriptions associated with the patient; if the information received regarding the medicament injection is consistent with the patient profile, proceeding to display, via the display of the second computing device, the one or more setup steps for preparing the medicament injection; and if the information received regarding the medicament injection is not consistent with the patient profile, proceeding to display, via the display of the second computing device, an error message (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 101-102 and 111; One or more embodiments of the disclosure further provide apparatus, systems and methods that provide EHR integration, advance the art of drug delivery devices, apparatus or systems by allowing home delivery of complex regimens as ordered, updating administration in a patient's record, and allowing healthcare providers to review a complete regimen history for a patient without extra effort. One or more embodiments provide apparatus, systems and methods that allow integration with an EHR system and only allowing administration of medications under safe conditions, replicating the safety measures at home that are currently present in clinic settings.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 5, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more setup steps for preparing the medicament injection include a visual representation of one or more components for the medicament injection (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 56; FIG. 13 shows a schematic view of tubing sets providing visual feedback in accordance with one or more embodiments.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 1, wherein the injection dashboard includes one or more of an injection timer, an indication of a completion time of the medicament injection, one or more patient vitals, and a progress bar (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 101; Feedback to the user may include, for example, confirmation of proper setup, readiness to administer medications, progress of one or more medication administrations, an error in configuration prior to administration, an error during administration of one or more medications, or completion of medication administration. See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 127; In some embodiments, the second processor comprises a clinical trial data management system interface. In some embodiments, the second processor comprises a smartphone, smart tablet, smart television set, or voice activated assistant. See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 192; The controller is in two-way communication with the drug delivery device. Sensors attached to the patient are also part of the first subcomponent that monitor and collect patient anatomic, e.g., skin changes, and physiologic data, e.g., vital signs, serum or backpressure data that is transmitted to the controller).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 7, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying, via the display of the second computing device, an indication of one or more patient vitals during the medicament injection (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 192; The controller is in two-way communication with the drug delivery device. Sensors attached to the patient are also part of the first subcomponent that monitor and collect patient anatomic, e.g., skin changes, and physiologic data, e.g., vital signs, serum or backpressure data that is transmitted to the controller).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more patient vitals are measured via a third computing device, and wherein the measured one or more patient vitals are transmitted from the third computing device to the second computing device (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 192; The controller is in two-way communication with the drug delivery device. Sensors attached to the patient are also part of the first subcomponent that monitor and collect patient anatomic, e.g., skin changes, and physiologic data, e.g., vital signs, serum or backpressure data that is transmitted to the controller).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 8, wherein the third computing device comprises a wearable device (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 127; In some embodiments, the second processor comprises a smartphone, smart tablet, smart television set, or voice activated assistant.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 10, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more patient vitals comprise one or more of a heartrate of the patient, a body temperature of the patient, a respiratory rate of the patient, a blood oxygen level of the patient, or a blood pressure of the patient (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 184; Physiologic data 502 for potential infusion reactions, may include by way of example but not limitation, heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and temperature, which are collected by way of sensor(s) 407.)
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 11, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 7, further comprising: determining that at least one of the one or more patient vitals are outside of a predetermined acceptable range (See Coyne, III et al. paragraph 233; In some embodiments, the drug delivery system is programmed to prohibit delivery if certain laboratory values contained within an EHR are unavailable or outside predefined ranges.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 12, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 11, further comprising: displaying, via the display of the second computing device, an indication that at least one of the one or more patient vitals are outside of the predetermined acceptable range; and simultaneously calling an emergency service (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 184, 189, 192 and 233; If the healthcare provider confirms the patient is experiencing an infusion reaction and determines it is unsafe to restart the infusion 523, they can opt to trigger an optionally provided feature within the drug delivery system to administer one or more emergency medications 524 and optionally call emergency medical services 525. In an alternative embodiment, the emergency medical services 525 are configured to provide a timelier response by virtue of geolocation data 526 provided by the drug delivery apparatus or system.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 13, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 11, further comprising: displaying, via the display of the second computing device, an indication that at least one of the one or more patient vitals are outside of the predetermined acceptable range; and in response to a determination that no action is taken by the patient, calling an emergency service (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 184, 189, 192 and 233; If the healthcare provider confirms the patient is experiencing an infusion reaction and determines it is unsafe to restart the infusion 523, they can opt to trigger an optionally provided feature within the drug delivery system to administer one or more emergency medications 524 and optionally call emergency medical services 525. In an alternative embodiment, the emergency medical services 525 are configured to provide a timelier response by virtue of geolocation data 526 provided by the drug delivery apparatus or system.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 14, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 11, further comprising: displaying, via the display of the second computing device, an indication that at least one of the one or more patient vitals are outside of the predetermined acceptable range; and providing one or more voice prompts related to the indication that at least one of the one or more patient vitals are outside of the predetermined acceptable range (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 127, 184, 189, 192 and 233; If the healthcare provider confirms the patient is experiencing an infusion reaction and determines it is unsafe to restart the infusion 523, they can opt to trigger an optionally provided feature within the drug delivery system to administer one or more emergency medications 524 and optionally call emergency medical services 525. In an alternative embodiment, the emergency medical services 525 are configured to provide a timelier response by virtue of geolocation data 526 provided by the drug delivery apparatus or system.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 15, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 7, further comprising: displaying, via the display of the second computing device, a first set of one or more voice prompts if each of the one of the one or more patient vitals are within of a predetermined acceptable range; and displaying, via the display of the second computing device, a second set of one or more voice prompts if at least one of the one of the one or more patient vitals are outside of a predetermined acceptable range, wherein the first set of one or more voice prompts are different than the second set of one or more voice prompts (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 127 and 185; In some embodiments, the second processor comprises a smartphone, smart tablet, smart television set, or voice activated assistant. Sensor data may be supplemented with objective and subjective observation 507 of patients' conditions 503 from physical examination such as flushing, skin reactions, rigors, swelling, urticaria, angioedema, wheezing, stridor, cough, change in voice quality, or loss of consciousness. Sensor data may further be supplemented with data collected from patient interview or self-report 527, including by way of example, headache, shortness of breath, throat closing, diaphoresis, nausea, abdominal or back pain, itching, general anxiety, or self-reported sense of “impending doom.”). Examiner interprets these voice sensors and/or voice activation commands utilize well known and sophisticated speech processing systems that includes automatic speech recognition (ASR) and natural language processing (NLP) to understand and respond to voice commands. Thereby allowing the system to perform various tasks such as calling an emergency service).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 16, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first computing device comprises a smartphone (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 127 and 185; In some embodiments, the second processor comprises a smartphone, smart tablet, smart television set, or voice activated assistant.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 17, Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second computing device comprises an Internet-connected television (See Coyne, III et al. paragraphs 127 and 185; In some embodiments, the second processor comprises a smartphone, smart tablet, smart television set, or voice activated assistant.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Coyne, III et al., Ruchti, Nenov and Mountain are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on March 16, 2026 with respect to arguments in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pat. No.: US 20230166035 A1: Automated glucose level control system that provide therapy to a subject, such as glucose control, are disclosed. The system generates dose control signals using control algorithms configured to autonomously determine doses of insulin to be infused into a subject. When the system determines that an initial dose control signal does not indicate health-appropriate therapy, the system can modify a manual therapy instruction and transmit an emergency dose control signal to the medicament pump. Disclosed systems and devices can track insulin therapy administered to the subject over a tracking period, including storing an indication of the autonomously determined doses of insulin delivered to the subject. The system can generate a backup therapy protocol with insulin therapy instructions based at least in part on the insulin therapy administered to the subject over the tracking period.
Pub. No.: US 20220222734 A1; Ambulatory medical devices, which includes ambulatory medicament pumps, and blood glucose control systems that provide therapy to a subject, such as blood glucose control, are disclosed. Disclosed systems and devices can implement one or more features that improve the user experience, such as prompting and/or facilitating the user to order additional infusion sets, sensors, and/or other components to facilitate treatment.
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 EDWARD B WINSTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-7780. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1030 to 1830.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/E.B.W/ Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights