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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/11/2024. These drawings are accepted for examination.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 15, and 20, the recitation of “receiving a user choice via a graphical user interface” is unclear as it does not describe what the user is choosing/selecting at all. This creates downstream issues such as those in claims 2 and 3 (16), where “receiving one or more parameters associated with the user choice” is now unclear because it is unclear if the choice on the user interface in claim 1 is of the ‘parameters associated with the user choice’, or possibly creates some other situation where a parameter is called/stored/manipulated/etc.
Claims 1 and 6 (15, 20) both denote user choice(s), but fail to set forth that the user choice includes particular elements, aspects, or parameters, which also creates indefiniteness in claim 7 where the portion reduction for the user choice is unclear, because it is unclear whether or not the user choice even includes a portion to reduce. Finally in claim 12, the user choice is recited as being recorded as an initial plan, but it is unclear what about the “user choice” denotes a plan or can provide parameters, elements, aspects or other elements to enable the recording as an initial plan. In claim 13 (19), the reception of a second user choice is predicated on adjusting a value of “the user choice”, except the user choice has not been positively set for as including “values” to be adjusted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1) as being anticipated by Wexler et al (US 2020/0375549).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15-16, and 19-20 Wexler et al discloses and teaches a method including reception of a glucose reading from an in vivo glucose sensor in communication with the data receiving device (Fig 3, 0035), including a recent glucose value at a recent time and data for a predetermined time period (0035, 0061-0075, Fig 2), the generation of a visualization of the glucose reading on a mobile application on the receive device wherein the visualization includes first component for displaying recent glucose and second component for displaying the predetermined time period data (Fig 6c, 0117), receiving a user choice via a GUI of the application, calculating a personalized glucose prediction based on the choice (0039, 0061-0075), user specific parameters, and the glucose reading, wherein the prediction is for a predetermined time in the future, and updating the visualization component to display the glucose prediction as an extension of glucose data (0061-0075, Fig 6c, 0017).
Specific to claims 2, 5, 6, 16, 19, Wexler et al disclose the reception of insulin intake, food intake (including carbohydrates), and/or physical activity (0057) including ranges of values, the input of user choices in temporal order to update predictions (Fig 6c-f, abs, 0014-0019, 0047 (re-updating predictions)).
Regarding claims 8-11 and 17-18, Wexler et al disclose and teach acquisition at a current time (Fig 6c-f), the future time range between 3-5 hours (0061), the reception of physical activity and activity data and calculation from that physical activity, as well as the specifics of the physical activity (intensity, duration, mode, production, insulin, sequence, demographics, (specifically 0057, Fig 2, 0053-0057)).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16, Wexler et al disclose and teach the recording of a user choice as an initial value/plan, receiving measurements, and providing feedback as to whether the measurement data fits the plan, reception of a second user choice with real-time input to adjust the values of the user choice, and updating the visualization and prediction based on the choice (Fig 6a-c, Fig 4, 0115). Finally, the retrieval of a pre-trained model based on user parameters and production of glycemic profile which utilizes the model and applies it to the personalized data is disclosed (Fig 4, 0076).
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) 3, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wexler et al (US 2020/0375549) in view of Cabrera et al (US 2022/0000432).
Wexler et al discloses all that is listed above, but fails to set forth a positive recitation of retrieving parameters associated with a user choice via a call to an application interface on another system, the display as a single trace line proximate to the glucose readings for the personalized glucose prediction, nor the receiving of a portion reduction for the user choice with the GUI of the mobile application and calculating an updated personalized glucose prediction based on the portion reduction and prediction.
Attention is hereby directed to the teaching reference to Cabrera et al in the same area of endeavor which expressly teaches these elements. Specifically, Cabrera et al discloses and teaches most aspects of claim 1, including reception of glucose readings from in vivo glucose sensor in communication with the data receiving device (Fig 3b, 0202), including a recent glucose value at a recent time and data for a predetermined time period (0251, Fig 19a-b), the generation of a visualization of the glucose reading on a mobile application on the receive device wherein the visualization includes first component for displaying recent glucose and second component for displaying the predetermined time period data (0293), receiving a user choice via a GUI of the application, calculating a personalized glucose prediction based on the choice (0293-0295, Fig 19a-b), user specific parameters, and the glucose reading, wherein the prediction is for a predetermined time in the future, and updating the visualization component to display the glucose prediction as an extension of glucose data (Fig 19a-b, 0293).
Turning then to claims 3, 4, and 7, Cabrera et al discloses and teaches the analyte monitoring application running on the analyte sensor or display device (0198-0200), the personalized prediction displaying a single trace line presented graphically proximate the glucose (Fig 2a-5, 19a-b 0293), and also discloses the reception of portion reduction for a user choice and adjustment of glucose based on the portion reduction (Actions of 19a-b, eat/exercise/no action, 0293). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Cabrera et al with those of Wexler for the same intention of monitoring glucose and providing a prediction of glucose (as well as other analytes) during the patient’s life in a graphically presented manner (Abs, Wexler/Cabrera).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M. LAMPRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-3250. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/JOEL LAMPRECHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights