DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Internet communication was authorized on 3/19/2025.
Double Patenting
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15-16 of U.S. Patent No.11,147,480. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant invention claim 1 is broader than the patented claims and thus the patented species claims are anticipated by the pending claims. Due to the fact that the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the claimed genus in the application a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus; for claims 11 and 20, these claims contain additional structures generally present and expected to be present in a computer system operating the computational executed method of claim 11 such that the change in statutory category of product would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 20 of U.S. Patent No.11,357,427. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims contains slight variation in presentation and wording which reads generally on similar scope, and has features which are slightly broader than the patented claims and thus the patented species claims are anticipated by the pending claims. Due to the fact that the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the claimed genus in the application a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 20 of U.S. Patent No.11,564,600. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims contains slight variation in presentation and wording which reads generally on similar scope, and has features which are slightly broader than the patented claims and thus the patented species claims are anticipated by the pending claims. Due to the fact that the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the claimed genus in the application a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,262. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims contains slight variation in presentation and wording which reads generally on similar scope, and has features which are slightly broader than the patented claims and thus the patented species claims are anticipated by the pending claims. Due to the fact that the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the claimed genus in the application a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 20 of U.S. Patent No.12,279,864. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims contains slight variation in presentation and wording which reads generally on similar scope, and has features which are slightly broader than the patented claims and thus the patented species claims are anticipated by the pending claims. Due to the fact that the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the claimed genus in the application a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed with filing of terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record teaches similar concepts being claimed including usage of modeling data including usage of machine learning and some of the related parameters claimed as inputs, and teaches the claimed output: US 2008/0125636, US 2012/0232520, US 2017/0329917, US 2008/0306770, US 2019/0320976, US 2008/0071580, US 2009/0105568, US 2010/0106000, US 2012/0246106, US 2019/0142314, US 2011/0093249, US 2018/0042559, US 2019/0008461, US 2019/0192768, US 2020/0375549, US 2017/0220751, US 2014/0073892, but the art of record fails to teach, suggest, or reasonably make obvious the particular inputs, particular training mechanisms parameters, and particular identified pathways in relation to the other required features of the claim for diabetes management and treatment as considered as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights