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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2025, 03/24/2025, 03/24/2025, and 07/31/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 21 and 28 recite the setting a threshold and in response to receiving a selection prompting to set up another threshold. The prompting in response to a selection does not appear to be disclosed in the specification leading Examiner to question whether Applicant had possession over the claimed invention at the time of filing. Claims 22-27 and 29-34 are rejected based on their dependencies on claims 21 and 28.
Additionally, claims 26 and 33 replicate claims 21 and 28 but introduce the usage of a second selection and a third threshold. The specification appears to lack support for these elements. Claims 27 and 34 are rejected based on their dependencies on claims 26 and 33.
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 21-34 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. Claims 21-27 are drawn to a method and claims 28-34 are drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 21-34 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 21 recites a method for monitoring health data of a host, comprising:
1) setting, at a) a host monitoring device, a first notification threshold;
2) receiving, at the host monitoring device, a selection by a user of an option to suppress communications associated with the first notification threshold; and
3) in response to receiving the selection, implementing communications suppression by:
3a) calculating, at the host monitoring device, a projected analyte value for the host;
3b) in response to determining that the projected analyte value exceeds the first notification threshold, setting, at the host monitoring device, a second notification threshold having a different value than the first notification threshold;
3c) preventing a notification from being sent to b) a remote monitoring device in response to determining that a current analyte value of the host exceeds the first notification threshold; and
3d) sending the notification to the remote monitoring device in response to determining that the current analyte value of the host exceeds the second notification threshold.
Claim 21 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) setting a first notification threshold, 2) receiving a selection by a user of an option to suppress communications associated with the first notification threshold, and 3) in response to receiving the selection, implementing communications suppression by: 3a) calculating a projected analyte value for the host, 3b) in response to determining that the projected analyte value exceeds the first notification threshold, setting a second notification threshold having a different value than the first notification threshold, 3c) preventing a notification from being sent in response to determining that a current analyte value of the host exceeds the first notification threshold, and 3d) sending the notification in response to determining that the current analyte value of the host exceeds the second notification threshold. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how and when one can notify another of individual of changes in data values. Independent claim 28 recites similar limitations and is/are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 22-27 and 29-34 include all of the limitations of claims 21 and 28, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 26 and 33 add the additional steps of “setting, at the host monitoring device, a third notification threshold”, “receiving, at the host monitoring device, a second selection by the user of an option to suppress communications associated with the third notification threshold”, and “in response to receiving the second selection, further implementing the communications suppression by: calculating, at the host monitoring device, a second projected analyte value for the host; in response to determining that the second projected analyte value is below the third notification threshold, setting, at the host monitoring device, a fourth notification threshold having a different value than the third notification threshold; preventing a second notification from being sent to the remote monitoring device in response to determining that a current analyte value of the host is below the third notification threshold; and sending the second notification to the remote monitoring device in response to determining that the current analyte value of the host is below the fourth notification threshold”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 22-25, 27, 29-32, and 34 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 22-27 and 29-34 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 21 and 28 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a host monitoring device and b) a remote monitoring device to perform the claimed steps.
The a) host monitoring device in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [90], see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The b) remote monitoring device in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amount to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a host monitoring device and b) a remote monitoring device to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention sends notifications utilizing a) a host monitoring device, thus this computing device is adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Furthermore, the b) remote monitoring device in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives notification data, and transmits the data to a remote device over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 21-34 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
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.
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 21-23, 25-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0193704 to Harper et al.
As per claim 21, Harper et al. teaches a method for monitoring health data of a host, comprising:
--setting, at a host monitoring device, a first notification threshold; (see: paragraph [0202] where there is selection of a first notification threshold from a host monitoring device of the healthcare provider)
--receiving, at the host monitoring device, a selection by a user of an option to suppress communications associated with the first notification threshold; (see: paragraph [0200] where there is receiving of a selection by a user to mute/suppress notification communications associated with certain thresholds such as for the first threshold) and
--in response to receiving the selection, implementing communications suppression by:
--setting, at the host monitoring device, a second notification threshold having a different value than the first notification threshold; (see: paragraph [0290] and FIG. 25C where there is a setting of a second threshold which has a different/higher analyte value than the predetermined analyte level threshold)
--preventing a notification from being sent to a remote monitoring device in response to determining that a current analyte value of the host exceeds the first notification threshold; (see: paragraph [0290] where there is prevention of a notification being sent to a remote device in response to an analyte value exceeding the first threshold until a second threshold is exceeded) and
--sending the notification to the remote monitoring device in response to determining that the current analyte value of the host exceeds the second notification threshold (see: paragraph [0290] where there is prevention of a notification being sent to a remote device in response to an analyte value exceeding the first threshold until a second threshold is exceeded. An alert notification is sent to a remote device such as the one in paragraph [0078]).
The embodiment of Harper et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--in response to receiving the selection, implementing communications suppression by:
--calculating, at the host monitoring device, a projected analyte value for the host; and
--in response to determining that the projected analyte value exceeds the first notification threshold, setting, at the host monitoring device, a second notification threshold having a different value than the first notification threshold.
However in another embodiment of Harper et al. this is taught:
--in response to receiving the selection, implementing communications suppression by:
--calculating, at the host monitoring device, a projected analyte value for the host; (see: paragraphs [0202] and [0203] where there is projection and display of a low and a high based on a selection by a user on the display) and
--in response to determining that the projected analyte value exceeds the first notification threshold, setting, at the host monitoring device, a second notification threshold having a different value than the first notification threshold (see: paragraph [0202] where the thresholds may be changed by a user in response to this selection on the display).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to in response to receiving the selection, implementing communications suppression by: calculating, at the host monitoring device, a projected analyte value for the host and in response to determining that the projected analyte value exceeds the first notification threshold, setting, at the host monitoring device, a second notification threshold having a different value than the first notification threshold as taught by one embodiment of Harper et al. in the method as taught by another embodiment of Harper et al. with the motivation(s) of improving glycemic control (see: paragraph [0005] of Harper et al.).
As per claim 22, Harper et al. teaches the method of claim 21, see discussion of claim 21. Harper et al. further teaches wherein the communications suppression is implemented for a predetermined amount of time (see: FIG. 25B where there is suppression for a predetermined period of time. Also see: paragraph [0286]).
As per claim 23, Harper et al. teaches the method of claim 21, see discussion of claim 21. Harper et al. further teaches wherein the communications suppression is implemented for a predetermined number of received analyte value measurements (see: paragraph [0284] where there is a predetermined number of data points spanning a predetermined period of time which may be used as an alert condition. After which, suppression of an alarm is possible as explained in paragraph [0286]).
As per claim 25, Harper et al. teaches the method of claim 21, see discussion of claim 21. Harper et al. further teaches wherein the notification comprises a hyperglycemic event alert (see: paragraphs [0075] and [0126] where there is a hyperglycemic event alert).
As per claim 26, Harper et al. teaches the method of claim 21, see discussion of claim 21. Harper et al. further teaches further comprising:
--setting, at the host monitoring device, a third notification threshold; (see: claim 21 above)
--receiving, at the host monitoring device, a second selection by the user of an option to suppress communications associated with the third notification threshold; (see: claim 21 above) and
--in response to receiving the second selection, further implementing the communications suppression by:
--calculating, at the host monitoring device, a second projected analyte value for the host; (see: claim 21 above)
--in response to determining that the second projected analyte value is below the third notification threshold, setting, at the host monitoring device, a fourth notification threshold having a different value than the third notification threshold; (see: claim 21 above)
--preventing a second notification from being sent to the remote monitoring device in response to determining that a current analyte value of the host is below the third notification threshold; (see: claim 21 above) and
--sending the second notification to the remote monitoring device in response to determining that the current analyte value of the host is below the fourth notification threshold (see: claim 21 above).
These claim limitations are similar to claim limitations already stated within claim 21 without adding any other functionalities. Repeating steps that do not add a new and unexpected result has no patentable significance (see: MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B), Duplication of Parts). Simply repeating steps that were applied to one set of questions and applying those steps to another set of questions produces expected results, and as such, amounts to a mere duplication of parts conferring to no additional patentable weight.
As per claim 27, Harper et al. teaches the method of claim 26, see discussion of claim 26. Harper et al. further teaches wherein the second notification comprises a hypoglycemic event alert (see: paragraphs [0075] and [0126] where there is a hypoglycemic event alert).
As per claim 28, claim 28 is similar to claim 21 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 21 using the Harper et al. reference.
As per claim 29, claim 29 is similar to claim 22 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 22 using the Harper et al. reference.
As per claim 30, claim 30 is similar to claim 23 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 23 using the Harper et al. reference.
As per claim 32, claim 32 is similar to claim 25 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 25 using the Harper et al. reference.
As per claim 33, claim 33 is similar to claim 26 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 26 using the Harper et al. reference.
As per claim 34, claim 34 is similar to claim 27 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 27 using the Harper et al. reference.
Claims 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0193704 to Harper et al. in view of itself as applied to claims 21 and 28, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0070155 to Negi et al.
As per claim 24, Harper et al. teaches the method of claim 21, see discussion of claim 21. Harper et al. may not further, specifically teach wherein the communications suppression is implemented until a predetermined analyte pattern is detected for the host.
Negi et al. teaches:
--wherein the communications suppression is implemented until a predetermined analyte pattern is detected for the host (see: paragraph [0034] where there is suppression until a predetermined pattern is detected relating to stress. The pattern being related to analyte data is taught in the Harper et al. reference in paragraph [0126]).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the communications suppression is implemented until a predetermined analyte pattern is detected for the host as taught by Negi et al. in the method as taught by Harper et al. with the motivation(s) of monitoring a user’s wellness in real-time to make positive changes (see: paragraph [0017] of Negi et al.).
As per claim 31, claim 31 is similar to claim 24 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 24 using the Harper et al. and Negi et al. references in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684