Detailed Action
Double Patenting Rejection
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,980,646. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the patent recite an analyte monitoring system and method, whereas the claims of the instant application are broader version of claim(s) of the patent as illustrated below. Therefore, the claims of the instant application are encompassed by the claims of the patent, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive to the broader claims as recited in the instant application.
Instant Application
19/267,232
US Patent
9,980,646
11. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a remote monitor and from a server, information associated with a plurality of hosts, the information for each of the plurality of hosts including: host analyte levels that are based on measurements generated for each corresponding host by one or more continuous sensors for that host and sent from the host to the server, and notifications triggered by the server for one or more of the plurality of hosts; and
presenting a dashboard view that includes a plurality of cells, each cell displaying the information associated with a host of the plurality of hosts.
1. A method for remote monitoring health data, comprising:
presenting a user interface of a software application resident on a remote monitor device, the software application being configured to enable remote monitoring of an analyte concentration state of each of two or more hosts, the two or more hosts including a first host and a second host, wherein an analyte concentration state of each of the two or more hosts is monitored by different continuous analyte concentration sensor devices,
the first host having identified a particular user and provided the particular user of the remote monitor device an indication of permission to first permissible data associated with the analyte concentration state of the first host, the first host further providing the particular user an indication of permission to receive notifications associated with the first permissible data of the first host, the second host having identified the particular user and provided the particular user of the remote monitor device an indication of permission to second permissible data associated with the analyte concentration state of the second host, the second host providing an indication that the particular user does not have permission to receive notifications associated with the second permissible data of the second host, the remote monitor device being remote from the first and second host;
displaying, in the user interface, a dashboard display, the dashboard display comprising two or more cells, each cell of the two or more cells corresponding to at least one of the two or more hosts configured to be remotely monitored;
displaying, in a first cell of the two or more cells, the first permissible data associated with the analyte concentration state of the first host, the first permissible data being received from a secure server configured to determine that the remote monitor device is authorized to receive the first permissible data based on the first host's indication of the permission to the first permissible data;
displaying, in a second cell of the two or more cells, the second permissible data associated with the analyte concentration state of the second host, the second permissible data being received from the secure server configured to determine that the remote monitor device is authorized to receive the second permissible data based on the second host's indication of the permission to the second permissible data provided to the particular user; and
displaying, in the dashboard display, an interactive icon that, when engaged, navigates in the user interface to a first remote monitoring settings display associated with the first host, the settings page display comprising at least three cells, the first cell of the at least three cells including an option for the particular user to set a first alert based on a first trigger condition of the first permissible data associated with the analyte concentration state of the first host, the second cell of the at least three cells including an option for the particular user to set a second alert based on a second trigger condition of the first permissible data associated with the analyte concentration state of the first host, and the third cell of the at least three cells including an option for the particular user to set a third alert if no data associated with the first host is received over a particular duration of time, the particular duration of time being configurable by the particular user, the first and second trigger conditions being different from each other, the particular user being denied options to set notifications associated with the second host based on the indication that the particular user does not have the permission to receive the notifications associated with the second permissible data of the second host.
14. The method of claim 11, further comprising arranging the plurality of cells based on analyte levels for the corresponding hosts.
6. The method of claim 3, wherein the two or more cells are grouped in the dashboard display according to a severity of the condition information of the corresponding host.
15. The method of claim 11, further comprising arranging the plurality of cells based on a severity of a monitored condition for the corresponding hosts.
6. The method of claim 3, wherein the two or more cells are grouped in the dashboard display according to a severity of the condition information of the corresponding host.
16. The method of claim 11, further comprising grouping the plurality of cells based on a status of the cell, the status of each cell including one of: a removed status indicating that the remote monitor has been removed from accessing the host's data by the host, an active status indicating that the host's system is connected and providing data to the remote monitor, a disconnected status indicating that the remote monitor is currently not connected to a data transmission component, and a not sharing status indicating that the host has paused the sharing of data to the remote monitor.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein groups of the two or more cells grouped according to the monitoring status information includes (i) the continuous analyte concentration sensor device of the corresponding host is removed, (ii) the monitoring status information of the continuous analyte concentration sensor device of the corresponding host indicates a status of active, and (iii) the monitoring status information of the continuous analyte concentration sensor device of the corresponding host indicates a status of inactive.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,687. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the patent recite an analyte monitoring system and method, whereas the claims of the instant application are broader version of claim(s) of the patent as illustrated below. Therefore, the claims of the instant application are encompassed by the claims of the patent, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive to the broader claims as recited in the instant application.
Instant Application
19/267,232
US Patent
12,396,687
1. An analyte monitoring system, comprising:
a remote monitor, comprising:
at least one memory comprising executable instructions; and
at least one processor in data communication with the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from a server, information associated with a plurality of hosts, the information for each of the plurality of hosts including: host analyte levels that are based on measurements generated for each corresponding host by one or more continuous sensors for that host and sent from the host to the server, and notifications triggered by the server for one or more of the plurality of hosts; and
present a dashboard view that includes a plurality of cells, each cell displaying the information associated with a host of the plurality of hosts.
1. An analyte monitoring system, comprising:
a plurality of continuous analyte sensors, each configured to generate analyte measurements for a corresponding host from a plurality of hosts;
a plurality of sensor electronics modules each in communication with a corresponding continuous analyte sensor of the plurality of continuous analyte sensors, each sensor electronics module being configured to transmit analyte data for the corresponding host of the corresponding continuous analyte sensor, wherein the analyte data includes or is based on a set of analyte measurements generated by the corresponding continuous analyte sensor for the corresponding host; and
a remote monitor, the remote monitor including:
at least one memory comprising executable instructions; and
at least one processor in communication with the plurality of sensor electronics modules via a server and in data communication with the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the processor to:
provide, on a display, a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting a dashboard view including a plurality of cells, each cell displaying host information associated with a host of the plurality of hosts, the host information of the associated host including a textual identifier of the associated host, a visual identifier of the associated host, and an analyte concentration value for the associated host; receive a selection of one of the plurality of cells; provide a display page that includes additional information about the host associated with the selected cell, wherein the additional information includes a trend graph associated with the host; automatically modify a scale of the trend graph based on at least one of: (i) a rate of change of the analyte concentration value for the associated host, (ii) a hypoglycemia threshold or a hyperglycemia threshold being crossed by the analyte concentration value for the associated host, or (iii) a time of day; and automatically revert the scale of the trend graph to a default scale after a predetermined amount of time.
4. The analyte monitoring system of claim 1, wherein executing the instructions further cause the at least one processor to arrange the plurality of cells based on analyte levels for the corresponding hosts.
2. The analyte monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cells are automatically arranged based on the analyte measurements of each of the plurality of hosts.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11 and 15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,892. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the patent recite an analyte monitoring system and method, whereas the claims of the instant application are broader version of claim(s) of the patent as illustrated below. Therefore, the claims of the instant application are encompassed by the claims of the patent, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive to the broader claims as recited in the instant application.
Instant Application
19/267,232
US Patent
12,507,892
1. An analyte monitoring system, comprising:
a remote monitor, comprising:
at least one memory comprising executable instructions; and
at least one processor in data communication with the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from a server, information associated with a plurality of hosts, the information for each of the plurality of hosts including: host analyte levels that are based on measurements generated for each corresponding host by one or more continuous sensors for that host and sent from the host to the server, and
notifications triggered by the server for one or more of the plurality of hosts; and
present a dashboard view that includes a plurality of cells, each cell displaying the information associated with a host of the plurality of hosts.
13. A wireless mobile remote monitor, comprising:
a memory; a display; and
a processor coupled to the memory and the display, the processor configured to:
receive, from a server system, analyte concentration sensor data for a plurality of hosts, at least some of the analyte concentration sensor data being generated by receivers monitoring an analyte of the plurality of hosts; and
provide, utilizing the analyte concentration sensor data, a dashboard view of the plurality of hosts, the dashboard view including a plurality of cells, each cell associated with a different host of the plurality of hosts, wherein each cell includes information for the associated host, the information including a textual identifier of the associated host, a visual identifier of the associated host, an analyte concentration value for the associated host, a trend arrow, and an operational status of a receiver in communication with a sensor electronics module of the associated host, wherein the operational status comprises an indication as to whether the receiver in communication with the sensor electronics module of the associated host has temporarily stopped analyte concentration sensor data from being sent to the wireless mobile remote monitor.
5. The analyte monitoring system of claim 1, wherein executing the instructions further cause the at least one processor to arrange the plurality of cells based on a severity of a monitored condition for the corresponding hosts.
14. The wireless mobile remote monitor of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to order the plurality of cells according to one or more predetermined criteria, wherein the one or more predetermined criteria includes a severity of a monitored condition.
11. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a remote monitor and from a server, information associated with a plurality of hosts, the information for each of the plurality of hosts including:host analyte levels that are based on measurements generated for each corresponding host by one or more continuous sensors for that host and sent from the host to the server, and
notifications triggered by the server for one or more of the plurality of hosts; and
presenting a dashboard view that includes a plurality of cells, each cell displaying the information associated with a host of the plurality of hosts.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a wireless mobile remote monitor and from a server system, analyte concentration sensor data for a plurality of hosts, at least some of the analyte concentration sensor data being generated by receivers monitoring an analyte of the plurality of hosts; and
providing, by the wireless mobile remote monitor, a dashboard view of the plurality of hosts by utilizing the analyte concentration sensor data, the dashboard view including a plurality of cells, each cell associated with a different host of the plurality of hosts, wherein each cell includes information for the associated host, the information including a textual identifier of the associated host, a visual identifier of the associated host, an analyte concentration value for the associated host, a trend arrow, and an operational status of a receiver in communication with a sensor electronics module of the associated host, wherein the operational status comprises an indication as to whether the receiver in communication with the sensor electronics module of the associated host has temporarily stopped analyte concentration sensor data from being sent to the wireless mobile remote monitor.
15. The method of claim 11, further comprising arranging the plurality of cells based on a severity of a monitored condition for the corresponding hosts.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising ordering, by the wireless mobile remote monitor, the plurality of cells according to one or more predetermined criteria, the one or more predetermined criteria comprising a connection status of a remote monitor associated with each host of the plurality of hosts, wherein the one or more predetermined criteria includes a severity of a monitored condition.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221).
In regards to claim 1, Patel teaches an analyte monitoring system [fig. 1, par. 0007 L. 1-2]. Patel teaches that a host device receiving analyte data can transmit the received data to a server which can transmit to other devices (remote monitor) [par. 0042 L. 4-9 and L. 15-18, par. 0043 L. 1-6]. This teaching means that the system comprises a remote monitor. Also, Patel teaches that the remote monitor can be a PDA or smartphone [par. 0043 L. 1-6, par. 0044 L. 1-4]. This teaching means that the remote monitor comprises at least one memory comprising executable instructions; and at least one processor in data communication with the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions. Patel teaches that the remote monitor (processor) is configured to receive, from a server, information associated with a host, the information of the host including host analyte levels that are based on measurements generated for the host by a continuous sensor for the host and sent from the host to the server [par. 0007 L. 1-2, par. 0038 L. 4-12, par. 0042 L. 1-9 and L. 15-18, par. 0043 L. 1-6].
Patel does not explicitly teach that the system is used for a plurality of hosts. However, the fact that Patel’s system uses a server, it inherently means that the system is used for a plurality of hosts because a server will not be implemented for a single host. Patel does not teach that the remote receiver receives the data from the plurality of hosts and that the information for each of the hosts includes notifications. Also, Patel does not teach that the remote monitor presents a dashboard view.
On the other hand, Killen teaches that a remote receiver can receive the data from a plurality of hosts, wherein the data includes information of each host including physiological values that are based on measurements generated for the host by a continuous sensor and sent from the host to the server which in the case of Patel is host analyte levels generated by a continuous sensor of the host as shown above [fig. 1 element 8 (remote device), par. 0104 L. 1-4, par. 0112 L. 6-10, par. 0116 L. 1-4, par. 0133 L. 1-3, par. 0149 L. 9-15, par. 0150 L. 1-6, par. 0210]. Also, Killen teaches that the server can send notifications for one or more of the plurality of hosts based on the monitored data of each host [fig. A72, par. 0113, par. 0143 L. 1-10, par. 0154 L. 16-20]. This teaching means that the information for each of the hosts includes notifications triggered by the server for one or more of the plurality of hosts. Furthermore, Killen teaches that the remote monitor (processor) is configured to present a dashboard view that includes a plurality of cells, each cell displaying the information associated with a host of the plurality of hosts [fig. A26, par. 0134].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Killen’s teachings of the remote monitor receiving data from a plurality of hosts in the system taught by Patel because it will permit a caregiver that is in charge of multiple hosts to review data and notifications from each host in a simple manner.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the cells can be arranged based on a patient score that indicates whether the patient’s health is deteriorating [see Killen par. 0133 L. 11-18]. This teaching means that the at least one processor arranges the plurality of cells based on a severity of a monitored condition for the corresponding hosts.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Patel and Killen, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a system performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Patel and Killen, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Williams (US-2011/0125866).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the one or more continuous sensors include a continuous glucose sensor [see Patel par. 0038 L. 4-7].
The combination does not teach that the one or more continuous sensors include a heart rate monitor, and a GPS sensor.
On the other hand, Williams teaches that sensors monitoring a host can include a heart rate monitor and a GPS sensor [fig. 1 element 79 and 80, par. 0026 L. 1-5 and L. 11-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Williams’s teachings of including a heart rate monitor and a GPS sensor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to access other health parameters of the hosts.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Patel, Killen and Williams, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Williams (US-2011/0125866) and Dobbles et al. (US-9,452,258).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the measurements generated for each corresponding host include an analyte concentration of the host [see Patel par. 0038 L. 4-7], a temperature measurement of the host [see Killen par. 0210 L. 1-5], a blood pressure measurement of the host [see Killen par. 0210 L. 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Killen’s teachings of measuring temperature and blood pressure of the hosts in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to better know a health state of a host.
The combination of Patel and Killen does not teach that the measurements include a heart rate measurement of the host and a geographic location of the host.
On the other hand, Williams teaches that measurements of a host can include a heart rate measurement of the host and a geographic location of the host [fig. 1 element 79 and 80, par. 0026 L. 1-5 and L. 11-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Williams’s teachings of including a heart rate monitor and a GPS sensor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to access other health parameters of the hosts.
The combination of Patel, Killen and Williams does not teach that the measurements include a state of the host, the state including one of exercising, sleeping, and working.
On the other hand, Dobbles teaches that a host can also comprise an accelerometer which measurements are used to determine whether the host is exercising, sleeping or working [col. 48 L. 61-64, col. 49 L. 13-17]. This teaching means that the measurements include a state of the host, the state including one of exercising, sleeping, and working.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Dobbles’ teachings of sensing an activity of a host in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know the activity level of each host.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Patel, Killen, Williams and Dobbles, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US-8,510,126).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the processor can arrange the plurality of cells based on certain host data [see Killen par. 0133 L. 11-18]. However, the combination does not teach that the data used to arrange the cells is analyte levels.
On the other hand, Martin teaches that cells can be arrange based on the data of the hosts including analyte levels of the hosts [fig. 12 element 1205, col. 3 L. 34-39, col. 13 L. 1-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Martin’s teachings of arranging the cells based on analyte levels in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to easily identify the hosts that have high or low analyte levels.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Patel, Killen and Martin, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US-9,848,058), Robertson et al. (US-2013/0117696), Lewin et al. (US-2005/0261062) and Wallace (US-7,026,929).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach grouping the cells based on a status of the cell.
On the other hand, Johnson that cells can comprise status information including online and offline status of a host device [fig. 5B elements 844 and 845, col. 36 L. 20-27]. This teaching means that the status of each cell includes an active status indicating that the host's system is connected and providing data to the remote monitor and a disconnected status indicating that the remote monitor is currently not connected to a data transmission component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Johnson’s teachings of including a status in each cell in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know if a host device is transmitting data or not.
The combination of Patel, Killen and Johnson does not teach that the status also includes a removed status indicating that the remote monitor has been removed from accessing the host's data by the host and a not sharing status indicating that the host has paused the sharing of data to the remote monitor.
On the other hand, Robertson teaches that hosts have the ability to stop sharing of data as desired [fig. 7, par. 0101 L. 1-14]. This teaching means that the host can temporarily or permanently stop the sharing of data with a remote device. In other words, that the remote device comprises a plurality of status including a removed status indicating that the remote monitor has been removed from accessing the host's data by the host and a not sharing status indicating that the host has paused the sharing of data to the remote monitor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Robertson’s teachings of letting a host control the sharing of his/her data with the remote monitor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the host to decide when to share his/her data and when to stop sharing his/her data.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Johnson and Robertson does not teach that when a host stops sharing data either temporarily or permanently, the cell display that status.
On the other hand, Lewin teaches that when a device is not authorized to access data, can gray out data that the device is not authorized to access [par. 0043 L. 4-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lewin’s teachings of graying out data that the device is not authorized to access in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know when a host stopped sharing its data.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Johnson, Robertson and Lewin teaches that the remote device can gray out data that is not authorized to access [see Lewin par. 0043 L. 4-8], and that the host control as desired when data is shared with the remote device [see Robertson fig. 7, par. 0101 L. 1-14]. These teachings means that when data is displayed at the remote device the cells includes a status including a removed status indicating that the remote monitor has been removed from accessing the host's data by the host and a not sharing status indicating that the host has paused the sharing of data to the remote monitor. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the cells can also include a status including an active status indicating that the host's system is connected and providing data to the remote monitor and a disconnected status indicating that the remote monitor is currently not connected to a data transmission component [see Johnson fig. 5B elements 844 and 845, col. 36 L. 20-27]. However, the combination does not teach that the cells can be grouped based on the status.
On the other hand, Wallace teaches that an status of a cell can be used to group the cells based on the status [col. 5 L. 24-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wallace’s teachings of grouping cells based on status in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to easily know which host is active, inactive and sharing his/her data.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Patel, Killen, Johnson, Robertson, Lewin and Wallace, as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US-9,848,058) and Wallace (US-7,026,929).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the at least one processor presents, in a predetermined portion of the dashboard view, a subset of the plurality of cells that meet predetermined criteria.
On the other hand, Johnson teaches that the cells can have one of two different icons including a live icon that indicates that a host device is online and an offline icon that indicates that the host device is offline [fig. 5B elements 844 and 845].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Johnson’s teachings of including an icon that indicates a status of the host device in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know if a host device is transmitting data or not.
The combination of Patel, Killen and Johnson teaches that the cells can include icons that shows the status of the host device [see Johnson fig. 5B elements 844 and 845]. However, the combination does not teach that the cells are grouped based on the status of the devices.
On the other hand, Wallace teaches that an status of a cell can be used to group the cells based on the status [col. 5 L. 24-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wallace’s teachings of grouping cells based on status in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to easily know which host is active, inactive and sharing his/her data.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Johnson and Wallace teaches that the cells in the dashboard can include icons that shows the status of the host device [see Johnson fig. 5B elements 844 and 845], and that the status of cells can be used to group the cells based on the status [see Wallace col. 5 L. 24-28]. These teaching means that the at least one processor presents, in a predetermined portion of the dashboard view, one group of cells that contains the cells that have an online status (a subset of the plurality of cells that meet predetermined criteria).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Patel, Killen, Johnson and Wallace, as applied in the rejection of claim 7 above, teaches that the cells that have an online status will include an icon that shows an online status [see Johnson fig. 5B element 845], and the cells that have an offline status will include an icon that shows an offline status [see Johnson fig. 5B element 844]. Also, the combination teaches that the cells are grouped based on the status [see Wallace col. 5 L. 24-28]. These teachings mean that the cells in the group that has cells with an online status will have an online icon while the cells in the group that has cells with an offline status will have a different icon indicating an offline status. In other words, each of the plurality of cells includes an icon, and the subset of the plurality of cells that meet predetermined criteria are presented using icons different from the icons used for the remaining cells.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Patel, Killen, Johnson and Wallace, as shown in the rejections of claims 7 and 8 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US-8,510,126), Johnson (US-9,848,058), Kaula et al. (US-8,983,616) and Lewin et al. (US-2005/0261062).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the information for each of the plurality of hosts includes a textual identifier of the associated host [see Killen fig. A26].
The combination teaches that glucose values of the host are monitored [see Patel par. 0038 L. 1-7]. However, the combination does not teach that the information includes and an analyte concentration value for the associated host and a rate of change of an analyte concentration value for the associated host.
On the other hand, Martin teaches that the information can include an analyte concentration value for the associated host and a rate of change of an analyte concentration value for the associated host [fig. 16 ninth column (analyte concentration value) and tenth column (rate of change), col. 7 L. 37-40, col. 11 L. 33-37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Martin’s teachings of displaying the glucose values and rate of change of the glucose value in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to easily know if the glucose values of a host are normal or not.
The combination of Patel, Killen and Martin teaches that the information includes an analyte concentration value for the associated host [see Martin fig. 16 ninth column (analyte concentration value)]. Also, the combination teaches that monitored values can be displayed with the time at which the values were recorded [see Killen par. 00150 L. 4-6]. These teachings means that the information includes an analyte concentration value for the associated host and a time when the analyte concentration value was measured.
The combination of Patel, Killen and Martin does not teach that the information includes a functional status of a monitoring system of the host.
On the other hand, Johnson teaches that the information can include indicating whether a host device is online or not (a functional status of a monitoring system of the host) [fig. 5B elements 844 and 845].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Johnson’s teachings of including an icon that indicates a status of the host device in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know if a host device is transmitting data or not.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson does not teach that the information includes a visual identifier of the associated host.
On the other hand, Kaula teaches that the information can include a visual identifier of the associated host [fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Kaula’s teachings of including a visual identifier of the host in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know how the host looks like.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson and Kaula does not teach that the information includes an indication of one or more permissions to access predetermined data for the host.
On the other hand, Lewin teaches that the system can gray out data that the user has not authorization to access [par. 0043 L. 3-8]. This teaching means that the information includes an indication of one or more permissions to access predetermined data for the host.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lewin’s teachings of graying out data that a user has no authorization to access in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know if he/she has authorization to access data from a host.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson, Kaula and Lewin, as shown in the rejections of claim 9 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Goodnow et al. (US-2006/0010098).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that host can set one or more alert notification settings that are used to deliver notifications to a caregiver [see Patel par. 0058 L. 1-3, par. 0064 L. 1-12]. The combination teaches that notifications can be displayed at the remote monitor of the caregiver [see Killen fig. A36]. However, the combination does not teach that the alert notification settings set by the host can be modified by the user of the remote monitor.
On the other hand, Goodnow teaches that a host can authorize a caregiver to modify settings set initially by the host [par. 0235, par. 0238, par. 0409].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Goodnow’s teachings of letting a caregiver modify settings initially set by the host in the system taught by the combination because the caregiver mat have more knowledge about how to set proper settings values.
The combination of Patel, Killen, and Goodnow teaches when a cell is selected, the system will display more specific information about the host of the selected cell including an option to show alert notification settings that can be modified [see Killen fig. A33, fig. A34, fig. A37a, par. 0134 L. 1-5 and L. 11-12, par. 0138 L. 1-3, par. 0152 L. 1-3 and L. 7-8, par. 0156 L. 7-12]. This teaching means that the at least one processor is configured to identify a selection of one of the plurality of cells and present a settings page including one or more alert notification settings for the host corresponding to the selected cell. The combination also teaches that the alert notification settings are initially set by the host [see Patel see Patel par. 0058 L. 1-3, par. 0064 L. 1-12, see Goodnow par. 0235, par. 0238]. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the remote device can let a user modify the alert notification settings set by the host [see Goodnow par. 0409 L. 9-11, see Killen par. 0156 L. 7-12]. This teaching means that the at least one processor is configured to receive one or more modifications of the one or more alert notification settings. The combination further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to transmit the one or more modifications to the server for storage [see Killen par. 0154 L. 13-20, par. 0156 L. 7-12].
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Patel, Killen, and Goodnow, as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Patel, Killen, and Goodnow, as shown in the rejections of claims 1, 10 and 11 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688