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 .
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending.
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 3, 4, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a method which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, claims recite monitor(ing) one or more physical conditions of the user, analyz(ing) a plurality of the one or more physical conditions of the user to determine a health attribute of the user, analyz(ing) one or more medications taken by the user and determines whether the user is in compliance with a prescribed medical treatment, and determin(ing) whether the user is in compliance with a prescribed medical treatment, and whether a medication of one or more medications taken by a user may interact with one or more of: a second medication of the one or more medications taken by the user; a newly prescribed medication; an over-the-counter medication; an herbal supplement; a vitamin; or a food or a beverage.
These limitations, 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. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “monitoring”, “analyzing” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompass an observation and/or evaluation.
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 idea, Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of electronic circuity, a first power source, a display, a thickness of 1/4" or less, being configured to communicate with and receive data from one or more medical devices, and the device comprising a band manipulatable into a circle.
The electronic circuity, a first power source, a display, a thickness of 1/4" or less, and manipulating the band into circle are recited at high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
The limitation of communicating with and receive data from one or more medical devices represents mere data gathering and/or outputting. The communicating is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation of communicating is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 electronic circuity, a first power source, a display, and a thickness of 1/4" or less amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The communicating step, as discussed above, represents mere data gathering and/or outputting and is insignificant extra-solution activity. These elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-8 and 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luna et al. (hereinafter Luna) (US 20160270717 A1) in view of Lettow (US 20160327979 A1)1, and further in view of Dinkjian et al. (hereinafter Dinkjian) (US 20160117240 A1).
Luna and Lettow were cited as prior art in the previous office action mailed on 12/29/2025. Their teachings are incorporated by reference to the extent that is applicable to amended claims.
By way of amendment, Applicant inserted the limitation “wherein the electronic circuitry comprises a flash memory without a hardware memory management unit” into claim 1.
As to claim 1, Luna teaches wherein the electronic circuitry comprises a flash memory [FIG. 2: memory 206] [0051].
Luna in view of Lettow does not teach that a hardware memory management unit is eliminated in the electronic circuitry.
Dinkjian teaches that a processor in configured to perform address translation function without having memory management unit [0035].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of eliminating memory management unit as suggested in Dinkjian into Luna in view of Lettow to implement address translation and memory management. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification to reduce cost, and to save space.
As to claims 2-8 and 10-20, the rejections are respectfully maintained and incorporated by reference to the extent that is applicable to the current claims.
As to claim 21, it relates to device claim comprising the similar subject matters claimed in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under the same reason applied to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark, Applicant argued in substance that the rejection under 101 has been overcome by amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully traverses the Applicant’s argument with the following reason. The amendment of claim 1 does not overcome the rejection under 101 because the additional element added into claim 1 does not integrate the abstract ideas recited in claims 3, 4, 19 and 20 into a practical application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUXING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30PM.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/XUXING CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
1 Luna and Lettow were cited as prior art in the last office action mailed on 06/04/2025.
Prosecution Insights