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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 7-8, 11-12, 15-17, and 18 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 7 recites the limitation "the third stress resulting test point" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the third stress indicator level" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the DCN" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first measured stress indicator level and the second measured stress indicator level" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the third resulting test point" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the third resulting test point " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the third resulting test point " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the user" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 and 12-17 are drawn to a process. Claims 18-20 are drawn to a machine. As such, claims 1-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Independent Claim 1: A method to determine a member response in an individual member, the method comprising:
determining a member response by:
receiving a first series of resulting test points including a first resulting test point measured prior to an activity and a second resulting test point measured after the activity;
receiving a second series of resulting test points including a first resulting test point measured prior to an activity and a second resulting test point measured after the activity;
and determining the member response as a function of the first series of resulting test points and the second series of resulting test points;
determining an intervention based on the member response;
providing the intervention to the individual member;
determining a change in the individual member over a plurality of iterations of determining the member response;
and determining an efficacy of the intervention based on the change in the member response over the plurality of iterations.
Independent Claim 12: A method to determine member response in an individual member, the method comprising:
determining the member response by:
receiving a first resulting test point measured prior to an activity;
receiving at least a second resulting test point and a third stress indicator level measured at two or more time points after the activity, wherein the activity is operable to induce a stress response;
and determining the member response as a function of the first measured stress indicator level, the second measured stress indicator level, and the third measured stress indicator level, wherein the first resulting test point, the second resulting test point, and the third stress indicator level form a plurality of stress indicator levels;
determining an intervention for an intervention based on the member response;
and providing the intervention to a user.
Independent Claim 18: A system comprising:
a computer processor;
a data repository in communication with the computer processor and storing:
individual statistics having a member response and historic readings, resulting test point data having at least a first resulting test point and a second resulting test point, an activity, and an intervention;
an activity controller which, when executed by the computer processor, administers the activity;
a member response generator which, when executed by the computer processor, determines the member response;
a digital communications network which, when executed by the computer processor, provides a network for members of a population to interact with each other and for an individual member to access a metabolic test for determining the individual member's member response;
a server controller which, when executed by the computer processor:
determines the member response by:
receiving a first series of resulting test points including a first resulting test point obtained prior to the activity and a second resulting test point after the activity, receiving a second series of resulting test points including a first resulting test point obtained prior to the activity and a second resulting test point after the activity, determining a member response as a function of the first series of resulting test points and the second series of resulting test points, determines an intervention for an individual based on the member response;
provides the intervention to the user; determines a change in the member response over a plurality of iterations of determining the member response;
and determines an efficacy of the intervention based on the change in the member response over the plurality of iterations.
(Examiner notes: The above claim terms underlined are additional elements that fall under Step 2A - Prong Two analysis section detailed below)
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Therefore, determining a member response, receiving a first series and second series of resulting test points, determining an intervention, providing the intervention, determining a change in the individual member over a plurality of iterations of determining the member response, determining an efficacy of the intervention, receiving a first resulting test point, receiving a second resulting test point, receiving a third stress indicator, determining an intervention for an intervention, and providing the intervention, administers the activity, allows members of a population to interact with each other, and provides an individual member to access a metabolic test for determining the individual member’s member response are directed to managing personal interactions or personal behavior.
Additionally, determining the member response as a function of the first series and second series of resulting points, determining the member response as a function of the first, second, and third measured stress indicator level, amount to a mathematical concept which includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols but not merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) citing the abstract idea grouping for mathematical concepts for mathematical relationships).
The dependent claim 2 is directed to the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point comprise a first insulin level and a second insulin level, respectively.
The dependent claim 3 is directed to the first series of resulting test points and the second series of resulting test points being measured.
The dependent claim 4 is directed to the activity comprises instructing the individual member to ingest at least one of food or a fluid.
The dependent claim 5 is directed to the food or the fluid comprises a mixture of a glucose moiety.
The dependent claim 6 is directed to the member response is calculated as a function of the difference between the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point.
The dependent claim 7 is directed to receiving a third resulting test point, and wherein the member response is determined as a function of the time taken for the third stress resulting test point to return to the range of the first resulting test point.
The dependent claim 8 is directed to the member response is determined as a function of a slope of the second resulting test point and the third stress indicator level.
The dependent claim 9 is directed to the member response is calculated as an index of a function of the difference between the first resulting test point and both the second resulting test point and the third resulting test point, the time it takes for a fourth resulting test point taken after the third resulting test point to return to the range of the first resulting test point, and a function of a slope of both the second resulting test point and the third resulting test point.
The dependent claim 10 is directed to measuring the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point.
The dependent claim 11 is directed to measuring the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point comprises sharing the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point using the DCN.
The dependent claim 13 is directed to the method being performed at multiple instances and determining a change in the member response over multiple iterations.
The dependent claim 14 is directed to determining an efficacy of an intervention based on the change in the member response over the multiple instances.
The dependent claim 15 is directed to the member response is calculated as a function of the difference between the first resulting test point and both the second resulting test point and the third resulting test point.
The dependent claim 16 is directed to the member response is determined as a function of the time taken for a fourth resulting test point taken after the third resulting test point to return to the range of the first resulting test point.
The dependent claim 17 is directed to the member response is determined as a function of a slope of the second resulting test point and the third resulting test point.
The dependent claim 19 is directed to the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point are a first insulin level and a second insulin level.
The dependent claim 20 is directed to the activity comprises instructing the individual member to ingest at least one of food or a fluid.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-5, 10-11, 13-14, and 19-20 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 12, and 18 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Additionally, claims 6-9 and 15-17 amount to a mathematical concept which includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols but not merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) citing the abstract idea grouping for mathematical concepts for mathematical relationships).
As such, the Examiner concludes that the preceding claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim 3 recites the use of a continuous glucose monitor, only as being used in its ordinary capacity and is merely a tool to execute the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 10 recites the use of a psychometric instrument, a heart rate monitor, and a pulse oximeter, only as being used in its ordinary capacity and is merely a tool to execute the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 18 recites the use of a computer processor. The claim also recites the use of a data repository in communication with the computer processor and storing, in this case to store individual statistics having a member response and historic readings, resulting test point data having at least a first resulting test point and a second resulting test point, an activity, and an intervention. Additionally, claim 18 recites the use of the computer processor executing an activity controller, a member response generator, a digital communications network, and a server controller. The computer processor, data repository in communication with the computer processor and storing, activity controller, a member response generator, a digital communications network, and a server controller are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements, such as the continuous glucose monitor, psychometric instrument, a heart rate monitor, and a pulse oximeter, computer processor, data repository in communication with the computer processor and storing, activity controller, a member response generator, a digital communications network, and a server controller in independent claims 1, 12, and 18 and dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”). Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements are directed to generic computer component and functions being used to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant’s own disclosure on paragraph [0036] acknowledges that the “additional testing equipment, such as a heart monitor, pulse oximeter”. Paragraph [0041] discloses “a data repository (100). The data repository (100) is a type of storage unit or device (e.g., a file system, database, data structure, or any other storage mechanism) for storing data”. Paragraph [0043] discloses the “resulting test point data (110) can also be measured from biosensors, a continuous glucose monitor, and/or wearable device”. Additionally, the specification acknowledges in paragraphs [0052-0053] the “server (130) is one or more computer processors, data repositories, communication devices, and supporting hardware and software. The server (130) may be in a distributed computing environment. The server (130) is configured to execute one or more applications, such as an activity controller (138) or a member response generator (140)…computer processor (132) is one or more hardware or virtual processors which may execute computer readable program code that defines one or more applications, such as the activity controller (138) or the member response generator (140)”. Furthermore, paragraphs [0055-0057] discloses that the “server (130) also includes the activity controller (138). The activity controller (138) is software or application specific hardware which, when executed by the computer processor… server (130) also includes a member response generator (140). The member response generator (140) is software or application specific hardware which, when executed by the computer processor… server (130) also includes the digital communications network (DCN)”.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roslin et al. (US-20190320976-A1)[hereinafter Roslin].
As per Claim 1, Roslin discloses a method to determine a member response in an individual member in paragraph [0060] (a method to determine a glucose response, wherein the glucose response includes glucose variability, of a user), the method comprising: determining a member response by: receiving a first series of resulting test points including a first resulting test point measured prior to an activity and a second resulting test point measured after the activity in paragraph [0027] (receiving a first series of pre-meal glucose levels and post-meal or post-prandial glucose levels); receiving a second series of resulting test points including a first resulting test point measured prior to an activity and a second resulting test point measured after the activity in paragraphs [0027] and [0056] (receiving a second series of pre-meal glucose levels and post-meal glucose levels); and determining the member response as a function of the first series of resulting test points and the second series of resulting test points in paragraph [0032] (determining the glucose response from the first and second series of the pre and post meal glucose levels); determining an intervention based on the member response in paragraph [0032] (determining a recommended behavior modification (synonymous to an intervention) based on the glucose response); providing the intervention to the individual member in paragraph [0032] (displaying the recommended behavior modification to the user); determining a change in the individual member over a plurality of iterations of determining the member response in paragraphs [0027] and [0035] and [0063-0067] (determining a change in the glucose response over a plurality of iterations of determining the glucose response); and determining an efficacy of the intervention based on the change in the member response over the plurality of iterations in paragraphs [0063-0067] and [0075-0080] (a bubble style graphic that indicates changes from prior states based on the change in the glucose response over the plurality of iterations (Examiner notes that the bubble style graphic visually showing the changes of the glucose response after the recommended behavior modification indicates determining the efficacy of the recommended behavior modification)).
As per Claim 2, Roslin discloses the method of claim 1, Roslin also discloses wherein the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point comprise a first insulin level and a second insulin level, respectively in paragraphs [0027] and [0035] (the pre-meal glucose level includes insulin levels before the meal and the post-meal glucose level includes insulin levels after the meal).
As per Claim 3, Roslin discloses the method of claim 1, Roslin also discloses wherein the first series of resulting test points and the second series of resulting test points are measured using a continuous glucose monitor in paragraphs [0027] and [0055] and [0066] (the first and second series of glucose levels are measured using continuous glucose monitoring sensor).
As per Claim 4, Roslin discloses the method of claim 1, Roslin also discloses wherein the activity comprises instructing the individual member to ingest at least one of food or a fluid in paragraph [0027] (the activity includes instructing the user to eat various foods).
As per Claim 5, Roslin discloses the method of claim 4, Roslin also discloses wherein the food or the fluid comprises a mixture of a glucose moiety in Figures 14A and 14B (food or drinks include an apple, candy, and orange juice (Examiner notes that apples, candy, and orange juice includes a mixture of a glucose moiety)).
As per Claim 6, Roslin discloses The method of claim 1, Roslin also discloses wherein the member response is calculated as a function of the difference between the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point in paragraph [0035] and Figure 1 (glucose variability is calculated by the post-prandial glucose response (PPGR) measuring the difference between the post-prandial glucose level and the baseline glucose level).
As per Claim 7, Roslin discloses the method of claim 1, Roslin also discloses further comprising receiving a third resulting test point, and wherein the member response is determined as a function of the time taken for the third stress resulting test point to return to the range of the first resulting test point in paragraphs [0036-0038] and Figures 3A-4 (receiving a third glucose level, and the glucose variability is calculated by the glucose variation trace which measures the time taken for the third glucose level to return to the range of the pre-meal glucose level).
As per Claim 8, Roslin discloses the method of claim 7, Roslin also discloses wherein the member response is determined as a function of a slope of the second resulting test point and the third stress indicator level in paragraphs [0036-0038] and [0051] and [0075-0076] and Figures 3A-4 and 8-9 (the glucose variability is determined as a rate of change of the post-meal glucose level and the third glucose level).
As per Claim 9, Roslin discloses the method of claim 7, Roslin also discloses wherein the member response is calculated as an index of a function of the difference between the first resulting test point and both the second resulting test point and the third resulting test point in paragraphs [0031] and [0035-0038] and Figure 1 and Figures 3A-4 (glucose variability is calculated as a metabolic index by the post-prandial glucose response (PPGR) measuring the difference between the third glucose level, post-prandial glucose level and the baseline glucose level), the time it takes for a fourth resulting test point taken after the third resulting test point to return to the range of the first resulting test point in paragraphs [0036-0038] and Figures 3A-4 ( the glucose variability is calculated by the glucose variation trace which measures the time taken for the fourth glucose level to return to the range of the pre-meal glucose level), and a function of a slope of both the second resulting test point and the third resulting test point in paragraphs [0036-0038] and [0075-0076] and Figures 3A-4 and 8-9 and claim 5 (the glucose variability is determined as a rate of change of the post-meal glucose level and the third glucose level).
As per Claim 10, Roslin discloses the method of claim 1, Roslin also discloses wherein measuring the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point comprises taking a reading using at least one of: a psychometric instrument, a heart rate monitor, and a pulse oximeter in paragraphs [0031] and [0071] (receiving heart rate measurements (Examiner notes that receiving heart rate measurements indicates taking a reading using a heart rate monitor)).
As per Claim 11, Roslin discloses the method of claim 1, Roslin also discloses wherein measuring the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point comprises sharing the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point using the DCN in paragraphs [0055-0060] (transmitting pre and post meal glucose levels using network communication device (synonymous to the DCN)).
As per Claim 18, Roslin discloses a system in paragraph [0057] (a metabolic monitoring system) comprising: a computer processor in paragraph [0058] (a processor); a data repository in communication with the computer processor and storing in paragraph [0058] (a data storage coupled by a data communication system to the processor and storing): individual statistics having a member response and historic readings in paragraphs [0032] and [0062] and [0071] (individual sensor data (synonymous to statistics having a member response) and historical sensor data), resulting test point data having at least a first resulting test point and a second resulting test point in paragraphs [0027] and [0056] (pre-meal glucose levels and post-meal or post-prandial glucose levels), an activity, and an intervention in paragraphs [0027] and [0055] and [0063] and [0071] (an activity and recommended behavior modification); an activity controller which, when executed by the computer processor, administers the activity in paragraphs [0068-0071] (processor administers the activity); a member response generator which, when executed by the computer processor, determines the member response in paragraphs [0032] and [0060] (processor determining the glucose response, wherein the glucose response includes glucose variability); a digital communications network which, when executed by the computer processor in paragraphs [0055-0060] (network communication device (synonymous to the DCN), executed by the processor), provides a network for members of a population to interact with each other and for an individual member to access a metabolic test for determining the individual member's member response in paragraphs [0055-0060] and [0080] and [0091] (network communications device provides a community support link and for a user to access a metabolic test for determining the user's glucose response (Examiner notes that the community support link indicates members of a population interacting with each other)); a server controller which, when executed by the computer processor in paragraphs [0057-0058] (a server, executed by the processor): determines the member response by: receiving a first series of resulting test points including a first resulting test point obtained prior to the activity and a second resulting test point after the activity in paragraph [0027] (receiving a first series of pre-meal glucose levels and post-meal or post-prandial glucose levels), receiving a second series of resulting test points including a first resulting test point obtained prior to the activity and a second resulting test point after the activity in paragraphs [0027] and [0056] (receiving a second series of pre-meal glucose levels and post-meal glucose levels), determining a member response as a function of the first series of resulting test points and the second series of resulting test points in paragraph [0032] (determining a recommended behavior modification (synonymous to an intervention) based on the glucose response), determines an intervention for an individual based on the member response in paragraph [0032] (determining a recommended behavior modification (synonymous to an intervention) based on the mean glucose level); provides the intervention to the user in paragraph [0032] (displaying the recommended behavior modification to the user); determines a change in the member response over a plurality of iterations of determining the member response in paragraphs [0027] and [0035] and [0063-0067] (determining a change in the glucose response over a plurality of iterations of determining the glucose response); and determines an efficacy of the intervention based on the change in the member response over the plurality of iterations in paragraphs [0063-0067] and [0075-0080] (a bubble style graphic that indicates changes from prior states based on the change in the glucose response over the plurality of iterations (Examiner notes that the bubble style graphic visually showing the changes of the glucose response after the recommended behavior modification indicates determining the efficacy of the recommended behavior modification)).
As per Claim 19, Roslin discloses the system of claim 18, Roslin also discloses wherein the first resulting test point and the second resulting test point are a first insulin level and a second insulin level in paragraphs [0027] and [0035] (the pre-meal glucose level includes insulin levels before the meal and the post-meal glucose level includes insulin levels after the meal).
As per Claim 20, Roslin discloses the system of claim 18, Roslin also discloses wherein the activity comprises instructing the individual member to ingest at least one of food or a fluid in paragraph [0027] (the activity includes instructing the user to eat various foods).
Claims 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain et al. (US-20170071551-A1)[hereinafter Jain].
As per Claim 12, Jain discloses a method to determine member response in an individual member in paragraphs [0048] and [0061] (a method to determine sympathovagal balance (SVB) (synonymous to a member response) in a user), the method comprising: determining the member response by: receiving a first resulting test point measured prior to an activity in paragraphs [0046] and [0048] and [0051] and [0063] and [0200] and [0220] (obtaining a first portion of health measurement baseline value, referred to as a first range of stress values); receiving at least a second resulting test point and a third stress indicator level measured at two or more time points after the activity, wherein the activity is operable to induce a stress response in paragraphs [0048] and [0050-0051] and [0064] and [0069] and [0174-0175] and [0200] and [0220] (obtaining a second portion of health measurement value, referred to as a second range of stress values, and a stress level measured after repeated user activity, wherein the activity induces a stress response); and determining the member response as a function of the first measured stress indicator level, the second measured stress indicator level, and the third measured stress indicator level in paragraphs [0048] and [0061] (determine the sympathovagal balance (SVB) (synonymous to a member response) as a function of the plurality of stress levels), wherein the first resulting test point, the second resulting test point, and the third stress indicator level form a plurality of stress indicator levels in paragraph [0061] (the first portion of health measurement baseline value, the second portion of health measurement value, and the stress level are a plurality of stress levels); determining an intervention for an intervention based on the member response in paragraph [0177] (determining a suggestion for an approach to reducing the stress level (synonymous to an intervention) based on the SVB); and providing the intervention to a user in paragraphs [0046] and [0176-0177] (providing the suggestion to the user).
As per Claim 15, Jain discloses the method of claim 12, Jain also discloses wherein the member response is calculated as a function of the difference between the first resulting test point and both the second resulting test point and the third resulting test point in paragraphs [0061] and [0220] (the SVB is determined as the difference between the final stress values (synonymous to both the second and third resulting test points) and original stress values, referred to as the baseline stress values).
As per Claim 16, Jain discloses the method of claim 12, Jain also discloses wherein the member response is determined as a function of the time taken for a fourth resulting test point taken after the third resulting test point to return to the range of the first resulting test point in paragraph [0220] (the SVB is determined as the time taken for the final stress values to return to the baseline stress values).
As per Claim 17, Jain discloses the method of claim 12, Jain also discloses wherein the member response is determined as a function of a slope of the second resulting test point and the third resulting test point in paragraph [0220] (the SVB is determined as stress resilience, wherein stress resilience is defined as the difference of the stress values over time (Examiner notes that the difference of the stress values over time indicates a slope of the second and third resulting point)).
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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US-20170071551-A1)[hereinafter Jain], in view of Roslin et al. (US-20190320976-A1)[hereinafter Roslin].
As per Claim 13, Jain discloses the method of claim 12, Jain also discloses wherein the method is performed at multiple instances in paragraph [0215] (the steps in the method may be repeated).
Jain discloses repeating the method, but does not disclose determining a change in the member response over the repeated instances. However, Roslin discloses and wherein the method further comprising determining a change in the member response over multiple iterations of the method in paragraphs [0063-0064] (determining a change in the glucose response (synonymous to a member response) over a plurality of iterations of determining the glucose response).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method to determine member response in an individual member, as disclosed by Jain, to be combined with determining a change in the member response over multiple iterations, as disclosed by Roslin, for the purpose of improve their health which is beneficial for managing diseases such as diabetes and for weight loss [0036].
As per Claim 14, Jain and Roslin disclose the method of claim 13.
Jain does not disclose the following limitations. However, Roslin discloses further comprising determining an efficacy of an intervention based on the change in the member response over the multiple instances in paragraphs [0063-0067] and [0075-0080] (a bubble style graphic that indicates changes from prior states based on the change in the glucose response over the plurality of iterations (Examiner notes that the bubble style graphic visually showing the changes of the glucose response after the recommended behavior modification (synonymous to the intervention) indicates determining the efficacy of the recommended behavior modification)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method to determine member response in an individual member, as disclosed by Jain, to be combined with determining an efficacy of an intervention based on the change in the member response over multiple instances, as disclosed by Roslin, for the purpose of improve their health which is beneficial for managing diseases such as diabetes and for weight loss [0036].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi M, “Effects of Meal Timing on Postprandial Glucose Metabolism and Blood Metabolites in Healthy Adults” (2018) teaches on the effect of meal times on post-prandial glucose metabolism
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTEN N WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 - 5 pm, ET.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on (571)270-5096. 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.
/K.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights