CTNF 19/029,886 CTNF 73879 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-14 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 10, and 24 recite transmit a request to perform an operational test, receive data, and transmit a request to annunciate an alarm (claim 1); receive a request to perform an operational test, perform the operational test, communicate the data, and receive a request to annunciate an alarm (claim 10); transmit a request to perform a first operational test, receive data, transmit a request to annunciate a first alarm, causing the first device to perform a second operation test, determine, and cause a second alarm to be annunciated (claim 24). The limitation of transmit a request to perform an operational test, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor to” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, for the “a processor to” language, “transmit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually transmitting a request. Similarly, the limitations of receive data, transmit a request to annunciate an alarm, receive a request to perform an operational test, perform the operational test, communicate the data, receive a request to annunciate an alarm; transmit a request to perform a first operational test, transmit a request to annunciate a first alarm, causing the first device to perform a second operation test, determine, and cause a second alarm to be annunciated, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, for the “a processor to” language, “receive”, “transmit”, “perform”, “communicate”, “causing”, and “cause” in the context of the claims encompass the user manually receiving data, transmitting a request to annunciate an alarm, receiving a request to perform an operational test, performing the operational test, communicating the data, receiving a request to annunciate an alarm; transmitting a request to perform a first operational test, transmitting a request to annunciate a first alarm, causing the first device to perform a second operation test, determining, and causing a second alarm to be annunciated. 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 only recite one additional element - - using a processor to perform transmitting a request to perform an operational test, receiving data, transmitting a request to annunciate an alarm, receiving a request to perform an operational test, performing the operational test, communicating the data, receiving a request to annunciate an alarm; transmitting a request to perform a first operational test, transmitting a request to annunciate a first alarm, causing the first device to perform a second operation test, determining, and causing a second alarm to be annunciated. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality 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. Claims 1, 10, and 24 are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 1, 10, and 24 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 element of using a processor to perform transmitting, receiving, performing, communicating, causing, and determining amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 25-27 are rejected for the same reasons because of the dependency. Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recites transmitting a request to perform an operational test; receiving data, and transmitting a request to annunciate an alarm. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 16-23 are rejected for the same reasons because of the dependency. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-27 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 in view of Hendrixson (US 2009/0005729) . Regarding claim 1 , claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 discloses all the limitations in claim 1 of the present invention, but does not disclose the analyte level of a subject including a glucose level of a subject. Hendrixson teaches the use of an analyte of a subject including a glucose of a subject (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the analyte level of a subject including a glucose level of a subject to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 as taught by Hendrixson for the purpose of effectively monitoring components of a device . 08-34 AIA Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 2 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 3 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 4 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 5 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 6 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 7 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 8 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 9 of the present invention . Regarding claim 10 , claims 10 and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 disclose all the limitations in claim 10 of the present invention, but does not disclose the analyte level of a subject including a glucose level of a subject. Hendrixson teaches the use of an analyte of a subject including a glucose of a subject (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the analyte level of a subject including a glucose level of a subject to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 as taught by Hendrixson for the purpose of effectively monitoring components of a device . 08-34 AIA Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 11 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 12 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 13 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 14 of the present invention . Regarding claim 15 , claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 discloses all the limitations in claim 15 of the present invention, but does not disclose the analyte level of a subject including a glucose level of a subject. Hendrixson teaches the use of an analyte of a subject including a glucose of a subject (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the analyte level of a subject including a glucose level of a subject to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 as taught by Hendrixson for the purpose of effectively monitoring components of a device . 08-34 AIA Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 16 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 17 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 18 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 19 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 20 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 21 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 22 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 23 of the present invention . Regarding claim 24 , claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 discloses all the limitations in claim 24 of the present invention, but does not disclose the analyte level of a subject including a glucose level of a subject. Hendrixson teaches the use of an analyte of a subject including a glucose of a subject (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the analyte level of a subject including a glucose level of a subject to modify the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 as taught by Hendrixson for the purpose of effectively monitoring components of a device . 08-34 AIA Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 25 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 26 of the present invention . 08-34 AIA Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,364,419 recites all the limitation in claim 27 of the present invention . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fischell discloses alarm testing and backup for implanted medical devices with vibration alerts. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM. 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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. /ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 ANH V. LA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2685 Al April 4, 2026 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 2 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 3 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 4 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 5 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 6 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 8 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 9 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 10 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 11 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 12 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 13 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/029,886 Page 14 Art Unit: 2685
Prosecution Insights