DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The instant application having application No. 19/252,454 for FENNELL et al. for “ANALYTE MONITORING SYSTEM AND METHODS” filed June 27, 2025, which a preliminary amendment submitted July 23, 2026 has been examined.
Drawings
Drawings Figures 1-14 submitted on June 27, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Double Patenting Rejection
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,645 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,645 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,357,180 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,357,180 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,696,684 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,696,684 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,952,611 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,952,611 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,653,317 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,653,317 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,178,954 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,178,954 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,649,057 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,649,057 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,593,287 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,593,287 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,362,904 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,362,904 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 22-42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,928,850 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 22-42 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,928,850 B2 in view of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” and further in view of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”, allowing the claims 22-42 would result in an unjustified or improper granted of patents.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 22-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by the Prior Art of SLOAN (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0182306 A1) hereinafter “Sloan” in view of the Prior Art of KELLOGG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0094946 A1) of “Kellogg” and further in view of the Prior Art of TALBOT et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0065464 A1) hereinafter “Talbot”.
As to claim 33, Sloan discloses a receiver device (a device, a system, a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, device 104 [i.e. a receiver device], shown in Figures 1, 4 and described in Abstract and Paragraphs 0002-0003, 0018 and 0037-0041), comprising: one or more processors (a processing unit 307 [i.e. one or more processors], described in Paragraph 0041); and a memory storing instructions (the receiver 104 in one embodiment may also include a storage section such as a programmable, non-volatile memory device [i.e. a memory] as part of the processing unit 307, or provided separately in the receiver 104, operatively coupled to the processing unit 307, described in Paragraph 0041, implicitly meet the claimed limitations [i.e. a memory storing instructions]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: establish a wireless communication link with other devices; receive, over the wireless communication link with other devices (the transmitter 102 may include a transceiver to enable both data transmission and reception to and from the receiver 104 and/or any other devices communicating over the communication link 103 in the continuous data monitoring and management system 100, described in Paragraph 0021 and the receiver 104 may be further configured to transmit data to a data processing terminal 105 for evaluating the data received by the receiver 104, shown in Figure 1 and described in Paragraphs 0018-0019), a plurality of communication packets transmitted on a periodic basis (each data packet from the transmitter 102 includes 15 bytes as shown in the Figure. For example, the first byte (zero byte) corresponds to the transmitter 102 transmit time information ("TxTime"), described in Paragraph 0094, meet the claimed limitations, [i.e. a plurality of communication packets transmitted on a periodic basis]), each communication packet comprising data indicative of an analyte level and transmitter time information (an analyte sensor such as a blood glucose sensor that repeatedly measures blood glucose level of a patient at a predetermined time interval and transmits that information to the transmitter subsequent transmission, over the RF communication link, to the receiver, described in Paragraph 0008, meet the claimed limitations, [i.e. each communication packet comprising data indicative of an analyte level and transmitter time information]); use the transmitter time information to synchronize communication with the receiver device (the receiver 104 in one embodiment is configured to perform synchronized time hopping with the corresponding synchronized transmitter 102 via the communication link 103, meet the claimed limitations, [i.e. use the transmitter time information to synchronize communication with the remote device]); process the data indicative of the analyte level to generate analyte level information (the second section of the receiver 104 is a data processing section which is configured to process the data signals received from the transmitter 102, meet the claimed limitations, [i.e. process the data indicative of the analyte level to generate analyte level information]); and output the analyte level information on a display of the receiver device (a glucose level testing portion to receive a manual insertion of a glucose testing strip, and thereby determine and display the glucose level of the testing strip on the output 310 of the receiver 104, shown in Figure 3 and described in Paragraphs 0037-0040, meet the claimed limitations, [i.e. output the analyte level information on a display of the receiver device]).
Sloan does not expressly disclose the receiver device being wearable device, and the stablished wireless communication link and synchronizing being with remote device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kellogg discloses a wearable device (a system, method, and device, device 404 [i.e. a wearable device], shown in Figure 4 and described in Abstract and Paragraphs 0003, 0018 and 0021), comprising: one or more processors (a processor [i.e. one or more processors], described in Paragraphs 0016 and 0104); and electronics and software for the acquisition of sensor signals, and may perform signal processing, and may store analysis and trending information (described in Paragraphs 0016 and 0104-0106).
Thus, given a device, a system, a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Sloan and having the teaching of Kellogg disclosing a wearable device, comprising: one or more processors; and electronics and software for the acquisition of sensor signals, and may perform signal processing, and may store analysis and trending information that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure Sloan by incorporating the teaching of Kellogg such that a wearable receiver device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: establish a wireless communication link with a another device; receive, over the wireless communication link, a plurality of communication packets transmitted on a periodic basis, each communication packet comprising data indicative of an analyte level and transmitter time information; use the transmitter time information to synchronize communication with the another device; process the data indicative of the analyte level to generate analyte level information; and output the analyte level information on a display of the wearable receiver device, for the obvious advantage system flexibility suggested by Kellogg (Paragraph 0028).
The combination of Sloan as modified by Kellogg does not expressly disclose the stablished wireless communication link and synchronizing being with remote device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Talbot discloses a device, a system, a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (described in Paragraph 0028) comprising: a wireless communication link with a remote device (an RF communication system 60 and a bolus estimator 62. In particular embodiments, the RF communication system 60 includes an RF receiver 80, as shown in FIG. 3(a), which allows one-way communication from the BG meter 10 (or other external devices such as a remote programmer for the infusion pump 50) to the infusion pump 50. In other particular embodiments, the RF communication system 60' may include an RF transceiver 81, as shown in FIG. 3(b), which allows two-way communication between the BG meter 10 (or other external devices such as a remote programmer for the infusion pump 50 and the infusion pump 50, described in Paragraph 0058) and synchronizing communication with the remote device (RF transmission sent to the pump preferably includes an RF signal header followed by a command packet or an information packet. Since the pump's RF receiver 80 is likely to wake up in the middle of a command packet, the RF signal header at the start of each transmission helps the pump 50 to synchronize its data sampling and identify the first byte of a new command packet or information packet. The RF signal header is preferably the same for each transmission, and is transmitted at the start of each RF transmission. The RF signal header may include two parts: a preamble and a start signature. The preamble is a series of pulses used to train the pump's digital signal sampling, and allows the pump 50 to synchronize its pulse sampling with the pulse bits in the new transmission, described in Paragraph 0086).
Thus, given a device, a system, a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Sloan as modified by Kellogg and having the teaching of Talbot disclosing a stablished wireless communication link and synchronizing communication with remote device that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure Sloan as modified by Kellogg by incorporating the teaching of Talbot such that a wearable receiver device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: establish a wireless communication link with a remote device; receive, over the wireless communication link, a plurality of communication packets transmitted on a periodic basis, each communication packet comprising data indicative of an analyte level and transmitter time information; use the transmitter time information to synchronize communication with the remote device; process the data indicative of the analyte level to generate analyte level information; and output the analyte level information on a display of the wearable receiver device, for the obvious advantage as suggested by Talbot (Paragraph 0028).
As to claim 34, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 33 further Kellogg discloses wherein the wearable receiver device comprises a wrist watch (device 404 [i.e. a wrist watch], shown in Figure 4 and described in Paragraphs 0104 and 0106).
As to claim 35, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 33 further having the disclosure of Talbot that describe the BG measurement device such as the BG meter, the present invention may include a sensing device, which senses analyte values. In preferred embodiments, the analyte values are BG values. The sensing device preferably includes a sensor in contact with a bodily fluid of the user and a transmitter, wired and/or wireless (described in Paragraph 0042), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot in order to have wherein the remote device comprises a transmitter unit coupled to an analyte sensor, for the same motivational reasons as stated in claim 33.
As to claim 36, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 33 further having the disclosure of Talbot that describe the RF communication system 60 includes an RF receiver 80, as shown in FIG. 3(a), which allows one-way communication from the BG meter 10 (or other external devices such as a remote programmer for the infusion pump 50) to the infusion pump 50. In other particular embodiments, the RF communication system 60' may include an RF transceiver 81, as shown in FIG. 3(b), which allows two-way communication between the BG meter 10 (or other external devices such as a remote programmer for the infusion pump 50) and the infusion pump 50 (described in Paragraph 0058), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot in order to have wherein the remote device comprises a primary receiver unit, for the same motivational reasons as stated in claim 33.
As to claim 37, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 33 further having the disclosure of Sloan that describe The RF transmitter 206 of the transmitter 102 may be configured for operation in the frequency band of 315 MHz to 322 MHz, for example, in the United States. Further, in one embodiment, the RF transmitter 206is configured to modulate the carrier frequency by performing Frequency Shift Keying and Manchester encoding. In one embodiment, the data transmission rate is 19,200 symbols per second, with a minimum transmission range for communication with the receiver 104 (described in Paragraph 0036), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot in order to have wherein the wireless communication link is established using a communication key associated with the remote device, for the same motivational reasons as stated in claim 33.
As to claim 38, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 33 further having the disclosure of Sloan that describe A counter also on the transmitter 102 may be configured to keep track of a value for transmit time (TxTime) that increments by 1 each minute, from 0 to 255 and then repeats. This transmit time (TxTime) value is transmitted in the data packet each minute, shown as Byte 0 in FIG. 4. Using the transmit time (TxTime) value and the transmitter's unique identification information, both the transmitter 102 and the receiver 104 may be configured to calculate which of the 320 time segments will be used for the subsequent transmission (described in Paragraph 0073), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot in order to have wherein the synchronization information comprises a counter incremented with transmission of successive communication packets, for the same motivational reasons as stated in claim 33.
As to claim 39, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 33 further having the disclosure of Sloan that describe there is provided a continuous glucose monitoring and management system in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention includes a sensor configured to detect one or more glucose levels, a transmitter operatively coupled to the sensor, the transmitter configured to receive the detected one or more glucose levels, the transmitter further configured to transmit signals corresponding to the detected one or more glucose levels, a receiver operatively coupled to the transmitter configured to receive transmitted signals corresponding to the detected one or more glucose levels, where the transmitter is configured to transmit a current data point and at least one previous data point, the current data point and the at least one previous data point corresponding to the detected one or more glucose levels (described in Paragraph 0073), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot in order to have wherein each communication packet further comprises auxiliary information associated with a transmitter, the remote device, or an analyte sensor, for the same motivational reasons as stated in claim 33.
As to claim 40, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 33 further having the disclosure of Sloan that describe the receiver 104 is configured to detect signals whose strength exceeds a predetermined level to identify the transmitter 102 from which the receiver 104 is to receive data. Alternatively, the receiver 104 in a further embodiment may be configured to respond to signal transmission for a predetermined transmitter identification information of a particular transmitter 102 such that, rather than detecting the signal strength of a transmitter 102 to identify the transmitter, the receiver 104 may be configured to detect transmitted signal from a predetermined transmitter 102 based on the transmitted transmitter identification information corresponding to the pre-assigned transmitter identification information for the particular receiver 104 (described in Paragraph 0023), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot in order to have wherein processing comprises parsing the communication packets to separate urgent data from non-urgent data, for the same motivational reasons as stated in claim 33.
As to claim 41, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 33 further Sloan discloses wherein the communication packets each comprise current analyte data and historic analyte data (three glucose date points are transmitted each minute (one current and two redundant/historical), so collisions or other interference must occur for 3 consecutive data transmissions for data to be lost, described in Paragraph 0074).
As to claim 22, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 33. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 33 also applies to claim 22. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 33.
As to claim 42, the claim recites a non-transitory storage medium that parallels the device of claim 33. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 33 also applies to claim 42. Accordingly, claim 42 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 33.
As to claim 23, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 34. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 34 also applies to claim 23. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 34.
As to claim 24, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 35. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 35 also applies to claim 24. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 35.
As to claim 25, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 36. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 36 also applies to claim 25. Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 36.
As to claim 26, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 37. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 37 also applies to claim 26. Accordingly, claim 26 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 37.
As to claim 27, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 38. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 38 also applies to claim 27. Accordingly, claim 27 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 38.
As to claim 28, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 39. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 39 also applies to claim 28. Accordingly, claim 28 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 39.
As to claim 31, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 40. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 40 also applies to claim 31. Accordingly, claim 31 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 40.
As to claim 32, the claim recites a method that parallels the device claim 41. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 41 also applies to claim 32. Accordingly, claim 32 is rejected by the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 41.
As to claim 29, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 28 further Sloan discloses wherein the auxiliary information comprises at least one of transmitter status information, calibration information, power supply status information, sensor information (a transmitter operatively coupled to the sensor, the transmitter configured to receive the detected one or more glucose levels, the transmitter further configured to transmit signals corresponding to the detected one or more glucose levels, a receiver operatively coupled to the transmitter configured to receive transmitted signals corresponding to the detected one or more glucose levels, described in Paragraph 0075), or transmitter identification information (the steps of receiving an identification information corresponding to a transmitter, described in Paragraphs 0073 and 0091).
As to claim 30, the combination of Sloan, Kellogg and Talbot further discloses the aspects of claim 22 further Sloan discloses the method further comprising displaying a numerical representation of the analyte level on the display of the wearable receiver device (displayed data may include one or more of an alphanumeric representation corresponding to the one or more glucose levels, described in Paragraph 0081).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following cited arts are to show the state of art.
U.S. Publication No. 2004/0186365 A1 of JIN et al, disclose a continuous glucose monitoring system including a sensor configured to detect one or more glucose levels, a transmitter operatively coupled to the sensor, the transmitter configured to receive the detected one or more glucose levels, the transmitter further configured to transmit signals corresponding to the detected one or more glucose levels, and a receiver operatively coupled to the transmitter configured to receive transmitted signals corresponding to the detected one or more glucose levels, and methods thereof, are disclosed. In one aspect, the transmitter may be configured to transmit a current data point and at least one previous data point, the current data point and the at least one previous data point corresponding to the detected one or more glucose levels.
U.S. Publication No. 2005/0003470 A1 of NELSON et al, disclose a glucose measuring system includes a glucose meter that incorporates wireless communication capabilities. The meter can advantageously be a low cost meter by eliminating expensive components, such as the display. The user nevertheless is able to retrieve and view his or her glucose values by referring to displays within the glucose measuring local area network. Feedback via these displays can advantageously be used by the diabetic to create a higher level of confidence and safety.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SISAY YACOB whose telephone number is (571)272-8562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30-07:00 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, BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/SISAY YACOB/ August 14, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights