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 § 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 1-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed inventions in claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claim(s) recite(s) a of analyzing blood glucose levels.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following steps or instructions for “obtaining a plurality of blood glucose data…”, “determining a time in range ratio…”, “predicting a time when a blood glucose value…”, “analyzing predicted results to provide a blood glucose prediction curve to the user”, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
For example, the limitations concern a medical professional performing data collection, data analysis using mathematical concepts, prediction using mathematical trend concepts, and analyzing the results by providing the data in a curve to a user, which falls under an abstract idea directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong Two
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because there are no additional elements. Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and respective dependent claims 2-18, 20, and 21) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 as there are no additional elements required by the method. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldner et al. (US 2021/0391081; hereinafter “Goldner”).
Regarding claim 1, Goldner discloses a health analysis method for blood glucose management, comprising: obtaining a plurality of blood glucose data of a user during a detection time period, wherein the plurality of blood glucose data comprise a current blood glucose value detected at a current moment (e.g. ¶¶ 82-86); determining a time in range ratio of the user according to the plurality of blood glucose data and a glucose standard range (e.g. ¶¶ 87); predicting a time when a blood glucose value of the user meets the glucose standard range and a time when the time in range ratio meets a qualified condition according to the current blood glucose value and the time in range ratio (e.g. ¶¶ 87-91); and analyzing predicted results to provide a blood glucose prediction curve to the user (e.g. Figs 3-8).
Regarding claim 2, Goldner discloses the health analysis method further comprises: analyzing the predicted results to provide a blood glucose management path to the user (e.g. ¶¶ 67).
Regarding claim 3, Goldner discloses the health analysis method further comprises: analyzing the predicted results to provide a targeted target to the user, wherein the targeted target comprises a predicted target blood glucose value and a time for reaching the predicted target blood glucose value (e.g. ¶¶ 86).
Regarding claim 4, Goldner discloses determining the time in range ratio of the user according to the plurality of blood glucose data and the glucose standard range comprises: determining a number of standard detections during the detection time period, wherein one or more blood glucose values in the blood glucose data obtained by performing the standard detections are within the glucose standard range; and determining the time in range ratio according to a ratio of the number of standard detections to a total number of detections during the detection time period (e.g. ¶¶ 104-111).
Regarding claim 18, Goldner discloses the time in range ratio meets the qualified condition comprises: the time in range ratio is greater than or equal to 70% (e.g. ¶¶ 58, 72, 90, etc.).
Regarding claim 20, Goldner discloses a processor and a memory, the memory storing a computer program, the computer program being executed by the processor to implement the health analysis method for blood glucose management according to claim 1 (e.g. ¶¶ 40, 50, etc.).
Regarding claim 21, X discloses a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to implement the health analysis method for blood glucose management according to claim 1 (e.g. ¶¶ 23, 82, etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-17 avoid the prior art of record, but remain rejected under 101, as indicated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796