Systems, devices, and methods for time-in-range and meal-related analyte monitoring

The examiner has rejected all 29 claims on two grounds. First, the claims are rejected under §101 as directed to an abstract idea—meaning the examiner believes the invention is a mental process or mathematical concept not tied to a concrete technical improvement. Second, the claims are rejected under §102 as anticipated by a single prior patent (Hayter et al.), meaning the examiner found one reference that allegedly discloses every element of each claim.

The applicant has three months from the mail date (extendable to six months with fees) to respond. A typical response involves amending claims to add technical detail that addresses the abstract-idea concern, arguing that the prior art does not disclose all claim elements, or both. Applicants often request an examiner interview to clarify positions before filing a written response. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.