IP Library Granted Patent US 12,295,698
Granted Patent B2
US 12,295,698 · App. 18/526,849 · Granted May 13, 2025

Transcutaneous analyte sensors and monitors, calibration thereof, and associated methods

Inventors: Arturo Garcia (Chula Vista, CA); Peter C Simpson (Cardiff, CA); Apurv U Kamath (San Diego, CA); Naresh C. Bhavaraju (San Diego, CA); Stephen J. Vanslyke (Carlsbad, CA)
Assignee: Dexcom, Inc.
A61B5/0031A61B5/14532A61B5/1495A61B5/7246A61B5/743A61B5/1118A61B5/14503A61B2560/0223A61B2560/0228
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,295,698
App. No.
18/526,849
Granted
May 13, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Systems and methods are provided to calibrate an analyte concentration sensor within a biological system, generally using only a signal from the analyte concentration sensor. For example, at a steady state, the analyte concentration value within the biological system is known, and the same may provide a source for calibration. Similar techniques may be employed with slow-moving averages. Variations are disclosed.

Claims (36)

1. A method of compensating for drift in a glucose sensor within a biological system using only a signal from the glucose sensor, the method comprising:

measuring glucose concentration values using an indwelling glucose sensor;

determining a first slow-moving average of the measured glucose concentration values over a first period of time, and a first apparent sensitivity of the indwelling glucose sensor based at least in part on the first slow-moving average;

determining, after determining the first slow-moving average, a second slow-moving average of the measured glucose concentration values over a second period of time, and a second apparent sensitivity of the indwelling glucose sensor based at least in part on the second slow moving average;

determining a difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity fails to meet a predetermined criteria; and

performing a recalibration routine to compensate for drift in the glucose sensor based on determining the difference fails to meet the predetermined criteria, wherein the recalibration routine comprises updating a sensitivity value used to determine the glucose concentration values for updating a display of the glucose concentration values to a user with improved accuracy.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the predetermined criteria is based on a range of acceptable sensitivity changes with respect to time.

3. The method of claim 2 , wherein the range of acceptable sensitivity changes with respect to time is based at least on sensitivity drift.

4. The method of claim 2 , wherein the range of acceptable sensitivity changes with respect to time comprises known behavior for sensitivity changes over time for a glucose sensor, and wherein the known behavior for sensitivity changes constitutes an envelope of acceptable sensitivity changes with respect to time.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein determining a difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity fails to meet a predetermined criteria indicates a change in apparent sensitivity between the first slow-moving average and the second slow-moving average is not due to sensitivity drift.

6. The method of claim 1 , wherein the recalibration routine comprises determining an actual sensitivity based at least on the difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity or a difference between the first slow moving average and the second slow moving average.

7. The method of claim 6 , wherein determining the actual sensitivity is further based on user-entered data.

8. The method of claim 7 , wherein the user-entered data comprises information indicating a reason for the difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity failing to meet the predetermined criteria.

9. The method of claim 8 , wherein the information comprises meal or exercise information.

10. The method of claim 8 , wherein the information comprises a calibration value.

11. The method of claim 7 , further comprising: prompting a user of the glucose sensor to enter the user-entered data.

12. The method of claim 6 , further comprising determining a reason for the difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity failing to meet a predetermined criteria based at least on user-entered data.

13. A glucose sensor system, comprising:

a glucose sensor; and

a processor programmed to perform operations comprising:

measuring glucose concentration values using the glucose sensor;

determining a first slow-moving average of the measured glucose concentration values over a first period of time, and a first apparent sensitivity of the glucose sensor based at least in part on the first slow-moving average;

determining, after determining the first slow-moving average, a second slow-moving average of the measured glucose concentration values over a second period of time, and a second apparent sensitivity of the glucose sensor based at least in part on the second slow moving average;

determining a difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity fails to meet a predetermined criteria; and

performing a recalibration routine to compensate for drift in the glucose sensor based on determining the difference fails to meet the predetermined criteria, wherein the recalibration routine comprises updating a sensitivity value used to determine the glucose concentration values for updating a display of the glucose concentration values to a user with improved accuracy.

14. The system of claim 13 , wherein the predetermined criteria is based on a range of acceptable sensitivity changes with respect to time.

15. The system of claim 13 , wherein determining a difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity fails to meet a predetermined criteria indicates a change in apparent sensitivity between the first slow-moving average and the second slow-moving average is not due to sensitivity drift.

16. The system of claim 13 , wherein the recalibration routine comprises determining an actual sensitivity based at least on the difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity or a difference between the first slow moving average and the second slow moving average.

17. The system of claim 16 , wherein determining the actual sensitivity is further based on user-entered data comprising information indicating a reason for the difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity failing to meet the predetermined criteria.

18. A processor for a glucose system, the processor being programmed to perform operations comprising:

measuring glucose concentration values using a glucose sensor;

determining a first slow-moving average of the measured glucose concentration values over a first period of time, and a first apparent sensitivity of the glucose sensor based at least in part on the first slow-moving average;

determining, after determining the first slow-moving average, a second slow-moving average of the measured glucose concentration values over a second period of time, and a second apparent sensitivity of the glucose sensor based at least in part on the second slow moving average;

determining a difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity fails to meet a predetermined criteria; and

performing a recalibration routine to compensate for drift in the glucose sensor based on determining the difference fails to meet the predetermined criteria, wherein the recalibration routine comprises updating a sensitivity value used to determine the glucose concentration values for updating a display of the glucose concentration values to a user with improved accuracy.

19. The processor of claim 18 , wherein determining a difference between the first apparent sensitivity and the second apparent sensitivity fails to meet a predetermined criteria indicates a change in apparent sensitivity between the first slow-moving average and the second slow-moving average is not due to sensitivity drift.

Assignments (2)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 15, 2024
From: GARCIA, ARTURO; SIMPSON, PETER C.; KAMATH, APURV U.; BHAVARAJU, NARESH C.
To: DEXCOM, INC.
Reel/Frame 066121/0342 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 15, 2024
From: VANSLYKE, STEPHEN J.
To: DEXCOM, INC.
Reel/Frame 066121/0412 →
Continuity (7)
Continuation 18049924 · Oct 26, 2022
Continuation 16783107 · Feb 5, 2020
Continuation 15261818 · Sep 9, 2016
Continuation 15261711 · Sep 9, 2016
Continuation PCTUS2016050814 · Sep 8, 2016
Provisional Application 62216926 · Sep 10, 2015
Related Publication 20240180425A1 · Jun 6, 2024
References Cited (68)
US 6001067A · Shults et al. · 1999 [cited by applicant]
US 6424847B1 · Mastrototaro et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6477395B2 · Schulman et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6484046B1 · Say et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6512939B1 · Colvin et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6565509B1 · Say et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6579690B1 · Bonnecaze et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 8478557B2 · Hayter et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8626257B2 · Li et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8803731B2 · Turner et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8880042B1 · Beyer, Jr. et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8880371B2 · Beyer et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9033878B2 · Liang et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9211092B2 · Bhavaraju et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9279794B2 · Tolmie et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9700253B2 · Estes · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 9943256B2 · Varsavsky et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10470660B2 · Garcia et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10470661B2 · Garcia et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20050027177A1 · Shin et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050027463A1 · Goode, Jr. et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050143636A1 · Zhang et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060020187A1 · Brister et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070027385A1 · Brister et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080039702A1 · Hayter et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080200789A1 · Brister et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090137887A1 · Shariati et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090178459A1 · Li et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100221762A1 · Sterling et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100268477A1 · Mueller, Jr. et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110004085A1 · Mensinger et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110024307A1 · Simpson et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120265035A1 · Bohm et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130245981A1 · Estes et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140066736A1 · Budiman · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140182350A1 · Bhavaraju et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140188402A1 · Garcia · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20140278189A1 · Vanslyke et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150005601A1 · Hoss et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150164383A1 · Varsavsky et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150331419A1 · Nogueira et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150351673A1 · Vanslyke · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20170071511A1 · Garcia et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170071512A1 · Garcia et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170074757A1 · Garcia et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20200170508A1 · Garcia et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
CN 101213439A · 2008 [cited by applicant]
CN 101547633A · 2009 [cited by applicant]
CN 102006821A · 2011 [cited by applicant]
CN 102046080A · 2011 [cited by applicant]
CN 102313815A · 2012 [cited by applicant]
CN 102959401A · 2013 [cited by applicant]
EP 1154718A1 · 2001 [cited by applicant]
EP 2727530A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
JP H1085198A · 1998 [cited by applicant]
JP 2003520091A · 2003 [cited by applicant]
JP 2010505534A · 2010 [cited by applicant]
WO 2005057168A2 · 2005 [cited by applicant]
WO 2008042625A2 · 2008 [cited by applicant]
WO 2008114224A3 · 2008 [cited by applicant]
WO 2010141888A1 · 2010 [cited by applicant]
WO 2012142502A2 · 2012 [cited by applicant]
WO 2013138369A1 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
WO 2014158327A2 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO 2017044654A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2016/050814 mailed on Mar. 22, 2018, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2016/050814 mailed on Jan. 26, 2017, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Singal P. et al., “Simple Modeling Allows Prediction of Steady-State Glucose Disposal Rate From Early Data In Hyperinsulinemic Glucose Clamps,” Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2010. 298(2): E229-E236 [prepub online Nov. … [cited by applicant]