DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 17 October 2024, having claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-19, 31-32, 37, 44, and 62 (claims 4, 6, 8-9, 20-30, 33-36, 38-43, 45-61, and 63-104 were canceled) and drawing figures 1-10.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 102
3. 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-16, 37, 44, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raisoni et al. (US 2016/0345830 A1) (reference disclosed by applicant).
For claims 1 and 62, Raisoni discloses a method for communication by a display device (Fig 7, transceiver 730 of computing device [0289-0290]) in an analyte monitoring system (Fig 7, 720), comprising:
establishing a short-range wireless connection with an analyte sensor system (Fig 7, transceiver 730 of computing device [0289-0290] communicates with the analyte system 720 via communication links 725/735 wherein [0263] the links 725/735 may be Bluetooth (short-range) connections);
receiving one or more information packets from the analyte sensor system ([0287-0288] receiving signals via the links 725 to determine signal strength between the analyte sensor 720 and the computing device);
determining a signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection based on the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system ([0287-0288] receiving signals via the links 725 to determine signal strength between the analyte sensor 720 and the computing device); and
providing, to a user of the analyte sensor system, an indication of the signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection ([0291] the signal strength is displayed on the computing device via one or more user interfaces).
For claim 2, Raisoni discloses determining the signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection comprises performing received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements on the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system; and the indication of the signal strength comprises the RSSI measurements of the one or more information packets ([0287-0288] receiving signals via the links 725 to determine signal strength between the analyte sensor 720 and the computing device).
For claim 5, Raisoni discloses determining the signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection comprises determining a number of the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system in a period of time; the indication of the signal strength is based on the number of the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system in the period of time; and the indication of the signal strength is different for different numbers of the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system in the period of time ([0382] the signal strength measurements are performed over a period of time and represented in a line graph which would depict different levels for different time periods).
For claim 7, Raisoni discloses providing the indication of the signal strength comprises displaying, on a display of the display device, a number of shapes that corresponds to the signal strength; wherein the shapes comprise at least one of bars, a circles, of squares, or other shapes for representing the signal strength; and different numbers of the shapes correspond to different signal strengths ([0384] the signal strength levels may be represented in line graphs and bars (fewer bars for weak signals), or colors (yellow for weak signals) and displayed for the user on the computing device).
For claim 44, Raisoni discloses an analyte monitoring system (Fig 7, 720), comprising: an analyte sensor system; and a display device (computing device integrated with transceiver 730), wherein: the analyte sensor system (Fig 7, 720), is configured to:
measure analyte levels associated with a user of the analyte sensor system; and transmit one or more information packets to the display device ([0261-0262] the analyte sensor 720 collects health data of a user and transmit the data to the computing device (e.g., PDA, phone); and
the display device is configured to:
establish a short-range wireless connection with the analyte sensor system; receive the one or more information packets from the analyte sensor system (Fig 7, transceiver 730 of computing device [0289-0290] communicates with the analyte system 720 via communication links 725/735 wherein [0263] the links 725/735 may be Bluetooth (short-range) connections);
determine a signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection based on the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system ([0287-0288] receiving signals via the links 725 to determine signal strength between the analyte sensor 720 and the computing device); and
provide, to a user of the analyte sensor system, an indication of the signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection ([0291] the signal strength is displayed on the computing device via one or more user interfaces).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 2-3 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raisoni et al. (US 2016/0345830 A1) (reference disclosed by applicant) in view of Mandapaka et al. (US 2018/0110077 A1).
For claim 3, Raisoni does not expressly disclose determining the signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection comprises determining a bit error rate (BER) associated with the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system; the indication of the signal strength is based on the BER associated with the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system; and the indication of the signal strength is different for different BERs associated with the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system.
Mandapaka, from the same or similar field of determining the signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection comprises determining a bit error rate (BER) associated with the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system; the indication of the signal strength is based on the BER associated with the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system; and the indication of the signal strength is different for different BERs associated with the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system ([0314] the BER value of the received signals between the analyte sensor system and the display device are measured, and the lowest BER is used for pairing). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine the BER in the communication network of Raisoni based on the teaching of Mandapaka to determine the signal strength at the time of the invention.
For claim 2, Mandapaka discloses determining the signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection comprises performing received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements on the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system; and the indication of the signal strength comprises the RSSI measurements of the one or more information packets ([0314-0315] the RSSI values of received signals between the display device and the analyte sensor system fare measured to determine signal strength).
For claim 11, Mandapaka discloses the indication of the signal strength associated with the short-range wireless connection comprises a notification of a signal strength event ([0314-0315] the analyte sensor system or the display device monitors signal strengths of received signals (RSSI) to detect when a signal is above a threshold for pairing the display device with the analyte sensor system; both devices are notified of the RRSI values that meet the criteria).
For claim 12, Mandapaka discloses the signal strength event occurs as a result of at least one of: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) associated with the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system being below a signal strength threshold (0314-0315] RSSI values are compared to a threshold value for pairing); a bit error rate (BER) associated with the one or more information packets received from the analyte sensor system being greater than or equal to a BER threshold ([0314] BER value is considered for pairing); or a number of the one or more information packets being below a threshold number for a period of time.
For claim 13, Mandapaka discloses the notification includes a time period indicating when the signal strength event occurred ([0314] the signal strength measurements are performed over a period of time).
For claim 14, Raisoni discloses the notification includes location information of the display device indicating where the display device was located when the signal strength event occurred ([0293] the signal strengths are mapped/tracked to a position/location of the device).
For claim 15, Raisoni discloses the notification prompts the user to take corrective action to avoid or reduce occurrence of future signal strength events ([0294] the signal strength information suggests movements for the user to obtain a better signal strength).
For claim 16, Raisoni discloses the notification includes an indication of a corrective action for the user to take; and the indication of the corrective action comprises at least one of: an indication for the user to reposition the display device; or an indication for the user to leave an area having an interference level, caused by transmissions associated with other devices, above a threshold ([0294-0295] the signal strength information suggests movements for the user to obtain a better signal strength).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 10, 17-19, 31-32, and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights