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 § 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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 (rest by dependency) recites “determining whether an event occurs”. It is unclear what event Applicant is referring to.
Claim 1 (rest by dependency) recites “a signal loss section”. It is unclear what this means. A section of what?
Claim 4 recites “if the event has a higher priority than a signal loss”. It is unclear what event is being referred to. The claims further do not recite any priority for different event or signal loss.
Claim 5, 6, 9 (7-8 by dependency) recite “re-notification or a snooze”. It is unclear what snooze and re-notification apply to. Is there some sort of alarm that is not being claimed?
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining whether an event occurs, determining whether an event occurrence time falls within a signal loss section. The abstract idea is part of the Mental Process group(s) identified in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity; there is no improvement to a computer or other technology; does not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine. The additional elements are identified as follows: no additional elements are recited. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional computer and data-gathering elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer and data-gathering functions that do not add meaningful limitations to practicing the abstract idea.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has held that combining additional elements for data-gathering with abstract ideas does not make a claim patent-eligible. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole 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.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data gathering that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known data-gathering equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goode Jr. et al. (US 2010/0036222 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Goode.
Regarding Claim 1, Goode teaches: A method of providing an event notification in a glucose monitoring system, the method comprising:
determining whether an event occurs (paragraph 0362-0365);
in response to the occurrence of the event, determining whether an event occurrence time falls within a signal loss section (figure 8 element 84; paragraph 0333); and
outputting a notification corresponding to the event depending on whether the event occurrence time falls within the signal loss section (figure 8 element 86; paragraph 0362-0365).
Regarding Claim 2, Goode teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises outputting the notification corresponding to the event in the signal loss section (paragraph 0362-0365).
Regarding Claim 3, Goode teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises outputting or stopping output of the notification corresponding to the event during the signal loss section depending on a type of the event, and
the event comprises high and low glucose values, sudden fluctuations in glucose values, sensor replacement, calibration of glucose values, low battery of a sensor, or connection with a health care manager (paragraph 0362-0365).
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.
Claim(s) 4,is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goode in view of El-Khatib et al. (US 2022/0189604 A1), hereinafter El-Khatib.
Regarding Claim 4, Goode teaches: The method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly mention wherein the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises determining to output the notification corresponding to the event if the event has a higher priority than a signal loss.
El-Khatib teaches that alarms are categorized based on priority (paragraph 0591-592). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the method to include wherein the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises determining to output the notification corresponding to the event if the event has a higher priority than a signal loss to prioritize higher priority alarms/alerts.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goode in view of Lee et al. (US 2025/0134475 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 5, Goode teaches: The method according to claim 1, but does not mention wherein the notification comprises a re-notification or a snooze.
Lee teaches the ability to snooze alarms (paragraph 0121-0122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the method to include wherein the notification comprises a re-notification or a snooze to give a user the ability to pause alarms.
Regarding Claim 6, Goode teaches: The method according to claim 1, but does not mention wherein the signal loss section occurs during a re-notification or a snooze after the notification corresponding to the event, and
the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises outputting or stopping output of the re-notification or the snooze during the signal loss section.
Lee teaches the ability to snooze alarms (paragraph 0121-0122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the method to include wherein the signal loss section occurs during a re-notification or a snooze after the notification corresponding to the event, and
the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises outputting or stopping output of the re-notification or the snooze during the signal loss section to give a user the ability to pause alarms.
Regarding Claim 7, Goode in view of Lee teach: The method according to claim 6, wherein the event comprises high and low glucose values, sudden fluctuations in glucose values, sensor replacement, calibration of glucose values, low battery of a sensor, or connection with a health care manager (Goode – paragraph 0328, 0356; Lee - paragraph 0121).
Regarding Claim 9, Goode teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the event occurs in the signal loss section, and
the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises outputting or stopping output of the notification corresponding to the event after a signal loss ends (paragraph 0366).
Goode does not mention re-notification or the snooze. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the method to include wherein the notification comprises a re-notification or a snooze to give a user the ability to pause alarms.
Regarding Claim 10, Goode in view of Lee teach: The method according to claim 9, wherein the event comprises high and low glucose values, sudden fluctuations in glucose values, sensor replacement, calibration of glucose values, low battery of a sensor, or connection with a health care manager (Goode – paragraph 0328, 0356; Lee - paragraph 0121).
Claim(s) 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goode in view of Lee, in view of El-Khatib.
Regarding Claim 8, Goode in view of Lee teach: The method according to claim 6, but do not mention wherein the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises determining to output the notification corresponding to the event if the event has a higher priority than a signal loss.
El-Khatib teaches that alarms are categorized based on priority (paragraph 0591-592). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the method to include wherein the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises determining to output the notification corresponding to the event if the event has a higher priority than a signal loss to prioritize higher priority alarms/alerts.
Regarding Claim 11, Goode in view of Lee teach: The method according to claim 9, but do not mention wherein the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises determining to output the re-notification or the snooze if the event has a higher priority than the signal loss.
El-Khatib teaches that alarms are categorized based on priority (paragraph 0591-592). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the method to include wherein the outputting of the notification corresponding to the event comprises determining to output the re-notification or the snooze if the event has a higher priority than the signal loss to prioritize higher priority alarms/alerts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights